##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WMP.No.36848 of 2025 N.Kannadasan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), District Collector’s Office, No. 32 5th Floor T Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001

2. The Sub Registrar Konnur, Chennai 6300 049.

3. The Inspector of General Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai -600 028 ..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delete the endorsement dated 18.03.2013 made in the document bearing No.2555/2012 dated 29.06.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent with regard to the pendency of the proceedings under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act by accepting the market value of the property as set forth by the petitioner in the document.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sureshkumar for Ms.V.J.Latha For Respondent(s): Ms.Anu Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to delete the endorsement dated 18.03.2013 with regard to document bearing No.2555/2012 dated 29.06.2012 regarding the pendency of the proceedings under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner had purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 29.06.2012 registered as Document No.2555/2012. The stamp duty was fixed at Rs. 2,555/- per sq. ft., and the same was duly paid by petitioner. The valuation of the property was fixed, and stamp duty was discharged keeping in view the guideline value fixed by the Government as on 31.03.2012. However, the second respondent referred the matter to the first respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to fix the market value by enhancing the value to Rs. 6,000/- per sq. ft. instead of Rs. 2,555/- per sq. ft. Pursuant thereto, Form-I notice came to be issued on 26.09.2012, to which petitioner responded by submitting a reply on 13.10.2012. Thereafter, no final orders have been passed. It is in such circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed, primarily on the premise that the impugned proceedings have not been concluded even after 14 years, thereby suffering from the vice of being unreasonable, arbitrary, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, which reads as under:

"Rule 7. Final order determining the market value.— (1) The Collector shall, after considering the representation, if any, received from the person to whom notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 was issued and after examining the documents and recording such evidence as may be produced, pass an order determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the first notice determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument, and communicate the order so passed to the parties and take steps to collect the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any."

4. He would submit that in terms of the above Rule, the order ought to have been passed within a period of three months from the date of the first notice. He would submit that more than 14 years have lapsed and after issuance of the initial notice, there has been no progress whatsoever. He would submit that such inordinate delay is highly unreasonable. He would further place reliance on the judgments this Court in W.P.Nos.2392 of 2012, W.P.No.2078 of 2019, and W.P.Nos.11875 & 11894 of 2011, wherein this Court observed as under:

Relevant Extract in W.P.No. 11875 & 11894 of 2011):

"10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a specific statutory limitation fo