The authorities must adhere to proper procedural requirements in assessing the market value of a property, ensuring reasons for undervaluation are documented and not solely relying on guideline values.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the appellant partnership firm, represented by its Managing Partner, seeking to challenge the order passed by the 1^st respondent / Inspector General of Registration, dated 27.05.2025, in Na.Ka.En.11009/N1/2024.

2. According to the appellant firm, represented by its Managing Partner, the firm had purchased the subject property by virtue of a sale deed dated 18.05.2023, i.e., 1/25^th undivided share in properties comprised in S.Nos. 57/1A2, 57/1B, 65/1, 65/2, 65/3, 66/1, 66/2 and 66/3 situate at No.191, Uthandi Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, measuring approximately 10.00 cents. The sale deed was registered as document No.6495/2023 on the file of the 4^th respondent/Sub Registrar, Neelankarai, Chennai, for a sale consideration of Rs.64,00,000/- on which the applicable stamp duty of 7%, i.e., Rs.4,48,000/- was duly paid. While so, the appellant firm was served with a Form-I notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, alleging undervaluation of the subject property based on the guideline value of East Coast Road, and seeking payment of differential stamp duty to the tune of Rs.11,54,300/-. In response, the appellant appeared before the 3^rd respondent/The District Revenue Officer (DRO) (Stamps) on 20.06.2023, submitted a written representation explaining that the subject property, although proximate to East Coast Road, is neither accessible directly nor indirectly via that road, but only through Bajanai Koil East Street and Sangothaiamman Koil West Street, where the guideline values are Rs.1,500/- and Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft. respectively. Thereafter, the firm was served with a Form-II notice along with an order dated 11.01.2024, wherein the provisional market value was mechanically fixed as Rs.5,250/- per sq. ft., again relying on the guideline value of East Coast Road, without addressing the firm's prior objections or giving cogent reasons for the same. Hence, the appellant firm was constrained to file the present appeal against the order passed by the 1^st respondent / IG of Registration, dated 27.05.2025 in Na.Ka.En.11009/N1/2024.

3. Mr.R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr.K.Azhagu Raman, learned counsel on record for the appellant would submit that, the provisional market value for the subject property was mechanically fixed as Rs.5,250/- per sq. ft. by the authorities. The provisional market value of the subject property has been determined on the basis of the guideline value of East Coast Road. Such a determination is spurious and remiss the location of the subject property and viable access thereof. The subject property is situate in the mud road running adjacent to the Buckingham canal. The subject property, though proximate to the East Coast Road, neither has any roads or pathways for it be accessed via East Coast Road. Further, it is bounded on east by pond and other properties abutting East Coast Road, and as such, there is no direct connection with East Coast Road. It is further submitted that, the street running to the south of the subject property is a private road connecting the East Coast Road to the Indian Maritime University, which cannot be accessed by private individuals. As such, the only means of accessing the subject property are through the Bajanai Koil East Street or through Sangothaiamman Koil West Street. It is further contended that the guideline values of the aforementioned streets ought to have been utilised for determining the market value of the subject property and not that of East Coast Road, which cannot be used to access the subject property eit