IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.20183 of 2013

E.Keerthinathan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Santhome,

Chennai.

2.The Guideline Value Committee

Rep. by its Chairman,

The District Collector Kancheepuram,

Kancheepuram.

3.The District Registrar,

Nellukkara Street,

Kancheepuram.

4.The Joint Sub – Registrar,

No.IV, Joint Sub Registration Office,

Vanigar Street,

Kancheepuram.

... Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of

the proceedings dated 19.01.2013 passed by the second respondent

and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned in

respect of Tenyampakkam village alone.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu

for M/s.S.Selvaraj

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

Special Government Pleader

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the

proceedings dated 19.01.2013 passed by the second respondent and

to quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned in

respect of Tenyampakkam Village alone.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an

agriculturist and he used to buy the agricultural property that

comes up for sale in Tenyampakkam village. He presented a

document for registration on 08.05.2013 and the same was kept

pending. Hence, he made enquiry about the same and came to know

about the impugned proceedings. Hence, this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that in the impugned order, exorbitant amount has been

fixed as guideline value for the agricultural land. He further

submitted that before re-fixing the guideline value, the Special

Committee has to inspect the site, obtain affidavit from atleast

five persons, check whether any higher value document has been

registered for more than five times and thereafter the higher

value should be taken into consideration and draft statement for

guideline value should be drawn and it should be published in

vernacular newspapers and objections should be called for from

the general public and the objections received should be

considered by the Special Committee and the draft statement

should be accordingly modified and final statement of guideline

value should be published and thereafter the new guideline value

will come into effect. However, in the present case, without

following any of the procedure, guideline value has been

exorbitantly fixed which is un-sustainable one.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents submitted that fixing guideline value is not

within the clutches of single department and it involves multiple

departments. He further submitted that after following due

procedures, proposal for revision of guideline value will be

tabled before Taluk Level Committee for recommendation.

Thereafter, Taluk Level Committee will look into the proposal and

survey the whole situation. Thereafter, proposal will be tabled

before the District Level Committee for consent. Thereafter, the

District Level Committee will look into the objections seriously

and make corrections upto the degree. Thereafter proposal

obtained from multiple departments higher level Officers will be

finally placed before the State Level Committee and only after

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the State Level Committee approves the same, the guideline value

will come into light through internet. However, without knowing

these facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition

challenging the report of the District Level Committee.

5.The learned Special Government P