JUDGMENT :

Vijaya K.Tahilramani, M. Duraiswamy, JJ.

Since there are two conflicting judgments rendered by different Division Benches, the learned Single Judge, referred the matter to the Full Bench.

2. The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the original sale deed executed in Document No.2675 of 2012, dated 15.03.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner and further directing the respondents to refund the excess stamp duty of 2% already paid by the petitioner within a time frame.

3. The petitioner purchased the property comprised in S.F.Nos. 263, 268 and 268/1 situated at Allinagaram in the public auction conducted by the Syndicate Bank on 31.12.2011. The petitioner had purchased the property for a sum of Rs.1.03 crores. The bank had invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act for conducting the said auction. The bank also issued the Sale Certificate, which was registered as Document No.2675 of 2012, dated 15.03.2012. However, the 3rd respondent, who received the Sale Certificate for registration, insisted that the petitioner should pay the stamp duty as per the market value. The petitioner contended that he is liable to pay the stamp duty only in terms of the sale consideration set out in the Sale Certificate. Since the respondents declined to accept the said stand of the petitioner, he has filed the above Writ Petition.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in [The Inspector General of Registration and others v. K.K.Thirumurugan, 2015 (1) CTC 526], wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Registering Authority cannot doubt the value mentioned in the Sale Certificate, therefore, Section 47-A would not be applicable in respect of the property purchased by way of public auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Government Advocate, who appeared for the respondents, placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court dated 21.08.2017 made in W.A.(MD) No.3 of 2017 [The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru], wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Authorised Officer appointed by the bank in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act, by itself could not be equivalent to Civil or Revenue Court and that the SARFAESI Act merely provides for a mechanism and the lender uses the said mechanism to recover the money from the borrower. Further, the Division Bench held that it is only a mode of recovery and that the Authorised Officer can only be termed as an Agent of the secured creditors. In such view of the matter, the Division Bench held that the purchaser therein is liable to pay the stamp duty on the market value of the property concerned.

6. Because of these two conflicting judgments produced by the respective learned counsel, the learned Single Judge, referred the matter to a Larger Bench. Accordingly, this Full Bench is deciding the issue, which is under Reference, i.e., whether the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2015 (1) CTC 526 [cited supra] (OR) the ratio laid down in the unreported judgment dated 21.08.2017 made in W.A.(MD) No.3 of 2017 [cited supra], is good in law.

7. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had purchased the property in an auction held under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the value mentioned in the Sale Certificate by the Authorized Officer cannot be doubted and therefore, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has no application. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the property is sold in the public auction, the Authorized Officer should be construed as a Civil or Revenue Officer, thus, the value mentioned in the Sale Certificate should be taken as the value for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.

8. The learne