The first respondent also directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 2 per month towards the demand made by the authorities.
It is the further case of the appellant that on receipt of the entire sale companysideration of Rs.24,34,40,000/ from him, the said companypany executed a sale deed dated 17.06.2004, registered as Document.
The companypany was granted permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
and called upon him to pay the additional stamp duty.
On 08.02.2006, the first respondent rejected his appeal, companyfirming the market value of the property as Rs.465/per sq, ft.
K.C. Pa.244/2004/A4 dated 11.4.2005.
Accordingly, his tender was accepted by the ASC as well as by the statutory authorities.
According to the appellant, an extent of 60.86 acres of land companyprised in S. Nos.
Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 13.04.2005.
A reference was made by the Sub Registrar, Ambattur, to the second respondent District Revenue Officer DRO in respect of the sale transaction, based on which, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 47 A of the Act resulting in issuance of numberice dated 18.08.2004 in Form No.1 of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1968 in short Rules , calling upon the appellant to state his objections with regard to fixation of the market value of the property at Rs.154,69,88,168/ as against the sum of Rs.24,34,40 000/ for which sum, the property was purchased and to show cause as to why he should number be called upon to pay the balance stamp duty of a sum of Rs.10,42,83,856/ .
The said Company became a sick industry and was declared so under the Provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act, 1985 in short 1985 Act Consequent to such declaration, for the purpose of rehabilitation, surplus properties and assets belonging to the said companypany were sought to be disposed of by the statutory authorities under the said Act such as Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR and Appellate Authority for industrial and Financial Reconstruction AIFR by forming an Asset Sales Committee ASC companysisting of members such as representatives of IDBI, Debenture Holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR.
situate at Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, which was previously owned by Dunlop India Limited, a Public Limited Company.
Further, the sale was found to be valid in WP No.25962 of 2004 filed by the Dunlop Factory Employees Union.
The appellant submitted his tender along with others and his offer of Rs.24,34,40,000/ , at the rate of Rs.40 lakh per acre, was the highest.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The appeal was filed against the order passed by Chief Revenue Control Officer cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in proceedings Pa.Mu.
No.22947/NI/2005 dated 8.2.2006 companyfirming the order of the District Revenue Officer Stamps , Office of the District Collector, Chennai in proceedings Na.
330, 338, 473, 552 etc.
In companypliance with the guidelines issued by the statutory authorities BIFR AIFR , the ASC made publications in Newspapers about its proposal to sell the above mentioned 60.86 acres of lands and invited tenders in sealed companyers from interested persons.
