Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had acquired a large extent of land in Maraimalai Nagar for the Maraimalai Nagar Housing Scheme. The petitioner had been allotted a plot in Plot No.4, Block No.1, MIG-I, in Rail Nagar-II, Maraimalai Nagar, vide Allotment Letter No.AL8/13846/02, dated 12.3.2003, by the first respondent for a total consideration of Rs.86,042/-. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner, on 24.2.2004. As per the scheme, on completion of the payment of the instalments the allottee was legally entitled to get the sale deed to be executed by the first respondent and to be registered by the second respondent.
3. It has been further stated that the allotees of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had been permitted to furnish the stamp papers based on the actual consideration received by the first respondent. After the execution, the second respondent had received the same, for the purpose of registration. As far as the allottees of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority were concerned, the second respondent had insisted that the value of the stamp papers should be based on the guide line value fixed for registration of the documents.
4. It has been further submitted that after the payment of the entire cost of the land the first respondent had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, on 5.3.2009. After getting the sale deed the petitioner wanted to register the sale deed. The second respondent had insisted that the petitioner should pay the stamp duty on the prevailing market value on the date of registration, even though the petitioner is expected to pay the stamp duty only on the actual sale consideration fixed by the respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that this Court, under similar circumstances, as found in the present writ petition, had passed a number of orders directing the registering authorities to register and release the concerned sale deeds by accepting the stamp duty paid on the actual consideration.
6. The learned counsel had stated that based on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, reported in The Government of Tamil Nadu V. S.Jayalakshmi (2009(1) CTC 305), a batch of writ petitions had been allowed by this Court by a recent order, dated 22.4.2009, in W.P.No.23310 of 2008 (batch).
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and in view of the decisions cited supra, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
csh To
1. The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Thalamuthu Natarajan Buildings, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chengleput 603 003