Full Judgment
1. The petitioners have filed Application No.6248 of 2010 in O.P.No.172 of 2004 for impleading themselves in the said original petition, which was filed by N.Selvarajolou Chetty Trust seeking permission to sell the trust property at the price fixed by the Court, after issuing public advertisement. The property of the trust is to an extent of 2312 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.4130/2 and 4131 in O.S.No.3081, bearing Old No.34, New No.36, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued as per the direction of this Court in the said original petition, it appears that four offers were received. The highest bidder one Ravi has offered ` 1 Crore and as the same was accepted, this Court directed him to pay the said amount in two instalments, but he committed default. It was in those circumstances the petitioners, who got impleaded in the original petition, have offered to purchase the property for ` 1 crore and the Court accepted their offer and on 18.11.2010, the petitioners paid ` 50 Lakhs in favour of the trust and the remaining amount was directed to be paid on or before 22.12.2010. An order was passed on 1.12.2010 in Application No.6731 of 2010 in O.P.No.172 of 2004 in favour of the petitioners accepting the offer made by them and the petitioners are in possession of the property. The petitioners paid the balance amount on 20.12.2010 and after payment of the entire amount as per the direction of this Court, the sale deed was presented before the third respondent on 21.12.2010 and the same was registered as Document bearing No.496 of 2010 in favour of the petitioners on 22.12.2010 and it is stated that for the value of the property, namely ` 1 Crore, the necessary stamp duty and registration charges have been paid.
3. However, the third respondent has not released the document and he wanted to get clarification regarding the valuation of the property. Apart from taking a stand that the High Court has not taken steps for the purpose of presenting the document for registration, the third respondent, in the impugned order dated 3.1.2011, has stated that even though the petitioners have obtained order from the High Court for the purpose of purchasing the property, the High Court has not stated the market value as ` 1 Crore. The impugned order, however, states that the opinion from the Inspector General of Registration shall be obtained before passing further orders.
4. The impugned order dated 3.1.2011 is challenged on various grounds, including that inasmuch as the entire property, which includes the land as well as the superstructure, has been purchased by the petitioners pursuant to the advertisement issued by this Court in the original petition filed under the Trust Act and this Court has accepted the offer made by the petitioners in respect of the sale consideration, there is no question of under-valuation and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not arise.
5. Per contra, Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that even if the purchase is effected through the Court auction, the petitioners have to pay stamp duty on the basis of the guideline value and according to him, the matter has been referred for valuation under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the petitioners can work out their remedy before the competent authority.
6. On a perusal of the entire records, it is clear that the sale was effected as per the direction of the Court on the Original Side in O.P.No.172 of 2004. In fact, in the order dated 1.12.2010 made in O.P.No.172 of 2004 and Application No.6731 of 2010, this Court has accepted the price offered by the petitioners for the purchase of the property concerned for a sum of ` 1 Crore. Therefore, insofar as fixing of the price of the property is concerned, the same has been done as per the direction of this Court and in such circumstances, the question of entertaining any doubt about the valuation of the property does not arise and further, in such event, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked.
7. It is not as if the petitioners have purchased the property in an auction conducted under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act by an individual auctioneer. This is an auction conducted by the High Court by exercising its original jurisdiction in respect of the trust property. The auction conducted under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act by private auctioneer is totally different, wherein the auctioneer is concerned only about the amount due to the person who has engaged him for the said purpose. That is also the case where the banker or financier brings the property for sale, wherein also the auctioneer would be interested about the recovery of the amount and not about the price of the property concerned. When once the amount fetched in the auction process satisfies the amount due to the banker or financier, they will be satisfied. But the auctions conducted in the Court by way of public advertisement, either in the original side under the Trust Act or otherwise, are not comparable to the auctions stated above. In the auctions conducted by the Court, the Court takes into consideration the interest of the creditors or the interest of the trust or beneficiaries of the trust and in that view of the matter, the Court gives utmost importance to the value of the property, which is the subject matter of the sale. Therefore, after taking such strenuous efforts, if the Court grants approval for sale at a fixed price, no one can suspect about any under-valuation of the property and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not arise.
8. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that market value is a changing concept. In V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Officer-cum-Inspector and others, [2009] 7 SCC 438, while dealing with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "16. Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator." In fact, that was a case where the sale was effected while the issue was pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on the basis of the value fixed by Assets Sales Committee and that was accepted to be a genuine value and that being so, the question of suspicion about the valuation fixed by the Court on the Original Side and invoking of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to the facts of the case on hand is untenable.
9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 3.1.2011 is set aside and the third respondent is directed to register the document and release the same, however subject to the condition that all necessary formalities required under the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act, viz., payment of stamp duty and registration charges, are complied with. The third respondent is directed release the document within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, of course on compliance of the formalities aforesaid. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.