Madras High Court
E.Parvathi vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue ... on 26 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.10.2020
DATE OF DECISION : 26.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
E.Parvathi .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling
Officer and Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
Coimbatore
3. The Joint Sub Registrar-I
Gobichettipalayam
Erode District .. Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-
A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the order dated 8.1.2015 made in
Pa.Mu.No.30287/N2/2013 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling
Officer and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, confirming the order dated
7.6.2013 made in Mu.Pa.No.518/09 on the file of the District Revenue Officer
(Stamps), Coimbatore.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
For Appellant :: Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents :: Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the
Covid-19 pandemic.
2. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
8.1.2015 made in Pa.Mu.No.30287/N2/2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue
Controlling Officer and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, confirming the
order dated 7.6.2013 made in Mu.Pa.No.518/09 passed by the District Revenue Officer
(Stamps), Coimbatore, demanding the deficit stamp duty from the appellant.
3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the land in question is an agricultural land, therefore, Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu
Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 dealing with the
principles for determination of market value of agricultural land should have been
applied, whereas the first respondent, wrongly resorting to Rule 5(b) & (c) dealing with
the principles for determination of market value of house sites and buildings, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
determined the market value of the agricultural land. Explaining further, Mr.Manokaran
argued that the revenue documents and other relevant factors would clinchingly point
out that the land in question belonging to the appellant is only an agricultural land,
because it was a cultivable land even on the date of registration of the same. While so,
the decision taken by the Special Deputy Collector treating the property as commercial
area and wrongly quantifying the stamp duty on square feet basis is meaningless and
unacceptable. Continuing his arguments, Mr.Manokaran stated that the registering
authority, namely, the Sub Registrar has accepted the true value set forth in the
instrument and accordingly registered the document. Before accepting the said
document for registration, no queries were raised about the value of the land, therefore,
in the absence of any material on record to prove the fact that the Sub Registrar doubted
the stamp value set forth in the instrument, it cannot be decided that the matter should
be referred under Section 47-A. Moreover, the registering authority, while referring the
matter under Section 47-A, should have released the original document with an
endorsement therein that a reference under Section 47-A is pending in respect of the
said instrument, which has not been done. Again assailing the impugned order passed
by the first respondent, it was argued that the first respondent has erred in accepting the
reasoning given by the second respondent, as it is contrary to the provisional assessment
order dated 28.6.2012, because the second respondent quantified the deficit stamp duty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
even without any application of mind, inasmuch as neither the impugned order nor the
provisional assessment order had indicated any subjective satisfaction for arriving at the
value of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. Moreover, nowhere in the impugned order the objection
raised by the appellant has been considered. Besides, the first respondent has wrongly
accepted the bald and laconic order passed by the second respondent. Now the
grievance of the appellant is that the land in question covered in S.F.Nos.11/1 & 11/ 3
having an extent of 2 acres, 8 cents situate in Lakkampatti Village was purchased on
13.3.2009. To prove the fact that it is an agricultural land, adangal extract for the fasli
1420 dated 6.1.2012 has been filed, to bring the case of the appellant under Rule 5(a) of
the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
When the revenue record, namely, the adangal extract for the fasli 1420 dated 6.1.2012
clearly mentions that the land in question covered in S.F.Nos.11/1 & 11/3 having an
extent of 2 acres, 8 cents situate in Lakkampatti Village has been an agricultural and
cultivable land on the date of purchase on 13.3.2009 and also continued to be an
agricultural land even till the year 2012, Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention
of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 for the purpose of determining the stamp
duty should be followed, he pleaded.
4. A brief counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr.T.M.Pappiah,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the
appellant had purchased an extent of 2 acres, 8 cents of land in S.F.Nos.11/1 & 11/3
situate in Lakkampatti village by way of a sale deed dated 13.3.2009. Upon the
document being presented for registration, a stamp duty of Rs.16,000/- was paid fixing
the land value at Rs.2,50,000/- and the same has also been admitted. But the averment
of the appellant that her objection has not been considered by the second respondent, is
denied as false. Paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit states that the lands are fertile
lands capable of being grown with paddy and since the appellant had quoted a lesser
value in the sale deed, the first respondent has fixed the value at Rs.15 lakhs per acre.
Hence, no interference is called for, he pleaded.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, for deciding the issue
raised in this appeal, it is relevant to extract Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp
(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 as follows:-
“5. Principles for determination of market value.- The Collector
shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points
in arriving, at the provisional market value,
(a) In the case of lands –
(i) classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like;
(ii) classification under various tarams in the settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
register and accounts;
(iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification;
(iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in
question;
(v) points if any, mentioned by the parties to the Instrument or
any other person which requires special consideration.;
(vi) value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity;
(vii) average yield from the land, nearness to road and market,
distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities,
facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and
pumpsets.
(viii) The nature of crops raised on the land; and
(ix) The use of land, domestic, commercial, industrial or
agricultural purposes and also the appreciation in value when an
agricultural land in being converted to a residential, commercial
or an industrial land.
(b) In the case of house sites –
(i) the general value of house sites in the locality;
(ii) nearness to roads, railway station, bus route;
(iii) nearness to market, shops and the like;
(iv) amenities available in the place like public offices,
hospitals and educational institutions;
(v) development activities, industrial improvements in the
vicinity;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
(vi) land tax valuation of sites with reference to taxation
records of the local authorities concerned;
(vii) any other features having a special bearing on the
valuation of the site; and
(viii) any special feature of the case represented by the parties.
(c) In the case of buildings –
(i) type and structure;
(ii) locality in which constructed;
(iii) plinth area;
(iv) year of construction;
(v) kind of materials used;
(vi) rate of depreciation;
(vii) fluctuation in rates;
(viii) any other features that have bearing on the value;
(ix) property tax with reference to taxation records of local
authority concerned;
(x) the purpose for which the building is being used and the
income if any, by way of rent per annum secured on the
building; and
(xi) any special feature of the case represented by the parties.
(d) Properties other than lands, house sites and buildings –
(i) The nature and condition of the property;
(ii) Purpose for which the property is being put to use; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
(iii) Any other special features having a bearing on the
valuation of the property ”
6. As per the above Rules, when the land in question was purchased by the
appellant on 13.3.2009 and even four years thereafter, continues to be an agricultural
land, Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments)
Rules, 1968 alone will apply. This principle has been followed and directed to be
followed by the various pronouncements of our High Court and also the Supreme
Court. In the case of M.Chinnasamy v. The Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-
Inspector General of Registration and others, 2015 (2) MWN (Civil) 200, it has been
held that the registering authority or appellate authority must consider the market value
of property as on date of execution of instrument of conveyance and not even the date
on which document is tendered for registration. Paragraphs 16 & 17 of the said
judgment read as follows:-
“16. What is meant by market value, what is the market value
for the purpose of 'Stamp Act' and how to determine the market
value of the property are the relevant questions that arise for
consideration.
17. The first and foremost question is what is the relevant date
for fixing the market value of the property. The learned Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
for the Appellant relied upon the decisions reported in
Ezhilarasi v. I.G.of Registration, 2009 (1) CTC 698 : 2009 (5)
MLJ 1501, wherein it has been held that the market value of
property has to be determined, based on date when documents
were tendered for registration. This decision is not in
accordance with the provision of Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899. Under the explanation to Section 47-A, for the
purpose of this Stamp Act, market value of any property shall be
estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Collector
or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, such property
would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market
on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance.
Therefore, the Registering Authority or the Appellate Authority
is expected to consider the market value of property as on the
date of the execution of the instrument of conveyance and not
even the date on which the document is tendered for
registration.”
7. In the light of the above, the impugned order failing to follow the principles
dealing with the determination of market value, is liable to be set aside. Besides the
impugned order passed by the first respondent is palpably wrong, because, when the
land in question was purchased by the appellant on 13.3.2009, even four years
thereafter it continued to be an agricultural land, therefore Rule 5(a) alone will have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
application, as indicated that has not been done, hence, it is unsustainable in law.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the civil miscellaneous appeal stands
allowed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed. No costs.
Speaking order 26.04.2021
Index : yes
ss
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling
Officer and Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 004
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
Coimbatore
3. The Joint Sub Registrar-I
Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
T.RAJA, J.
ss
Judgment in
C.M.A.No.646 of 2015
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
