Madras High Court
N.Shanmugaraja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2021
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 and 28495 of 2005
WPMP.No.31094 of 2005
WP.No.40286 of 2006
N.Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
Secretary to Government,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -
Tamilnadu (Inspector General of Registration),
100 Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli Jn – 627 001
5.The District Registrar,
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
6.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps),
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
7.The Sub Registrar,
Burkit Maanagar, Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of
respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 6th respondent in
X-1/3139/2003 and to quash the order dated 13.05.2003 and consequently
to direct the first respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of
Rs.2,10,000/- collected from the petitioner as deficit stamp duty and
registration charges pursuant to the order of the 6th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
WP.No.28495 of 2005
N.Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -
Tamilnadu (Inspector General of Registration),
100 Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli Jn – 627 001
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
4.The District Registrar,
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
5.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps),
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
6.The Sub Registrar,
Burkit Maanagar, Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli
7.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents
in connection with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.07.2005 in
Letter No.26326/N3/U1/2003 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in WP.No.40286 of 2006 is filed to issue a writ
of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of respondents in
connection with the proceedings of the 6th respondent in X-1/3139/2003 and
to quash the order dated 13.05.2003 and consequently to direct the first
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- collected
from the petitioner as deficit stamp duty and registration charges pursuant to
the order of the 6th respondent; and the writ petition in WP.No.28495 of
2005 is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the
respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated
19.07.2005 in Letter No.26326/N3/U1/2003 and to quash the same.
2. In respect of WP.No.28495 of 2005, the case of the petitioner is
that the petitioner purchased the property comprised in survey No.149
situated at Palayamchettikulam Village by the registered sale deed dated
22.01.2001. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,80,000/- for the entire
extent i.e. 10 acres of the property. The sale deed was presented for
registration before the sixth respondent. Thereafter, in view of the
instrument was not properly valued and referred the matter to the District
Registrar and the District Registrar recommended the market value at
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The Deputy Inspector General i.e. the third
respondent herein also confirmed the same and determined at Rs.5,00,000/-
per acre. Accepted the recommendations made by the respondents 3 and 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
herein, the second respondent i.e. Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai also fixed market value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in his proceedings
dated 26.07.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner paid deficit stamp duty for
registration of the said document on 18.10.2001. Accepted the same, the
sixth respondent registered document vide document No.610 of 2001 on
22.10.2001 and released the document. Thereafter, the sixth respondent
referred the document under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act before
the fifth respondent herein. The fifth respondent called upon the petitioner
to appear for enquiry on 16.05.2003. Thereafter, by order dated 13.05.2003,
the fifth respondent determined the value at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The
petitioner also accepted the value determined by the fifth respondent and
paid the remaining deficit stamp duty.
2.1 While being so, the first respondent issued notice under
Section 47 A (6) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to appear before him
on 11.07.2005. In fact, the petitioner appeared and submitted his detailed
objections pointing out that the entire proceedings initiated by the fifth
respondent was already complied with under Section 47 A of the Indian
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
Stamp Act. Therefore, there is no need or occasion for the first respondent
to proceed under Section 47 (A) (6) of the said Act. After filing counter in
the present writ petition, the petitioner also challenged the order passed by
the fifth respondent dated 13.05.2003, thereby determined the value at
Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is
nothing but third round of determination of the value for the property which
was purchased by the petitioner. Initially, the sixth respondent referred for
determining the value of the property. Accordingly, the fourth respondent
fixed the value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by the
respondents 2 and 3 herein. The petitioner also paid deficit stamp duty and
the sixth respondent registered the document vide document No.610 of 2001
on 22.10.2001. Even then, the sixth respondent again referred the document
under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act to determine the proper
valuation of the subject property. Again, the fifth respondent determined the
value at Rs.6,50,000/- and however the petitioner paid the same on the very
next day. Therefore, the present proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
process of law and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to take the issue
on suo motu under Section 47 (A) (6) of the said Act, since already the value
of the property was determined on two occasions. He also submitted that the
writ petition is very much maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India though there is appeal remedy provided under Section
47 (A) (10) of the Indian Stamp Act. In this regard, he relied upon the
judgments in the case of V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-
cum-Inspector and others reported in 2009 (7) SCC 438 and in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & others
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate filed counter and
submitted that after registration of the document vide document No.610 of
2001 referred the document under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Accordingly, the fifth respondent after following due process as
contemplated under Section 47 (A) determined the value of the property at
Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. Though the petitioner paid deficit stamp duty, he
also challenged the same before this Court in WP.No.40286 of 2006. He
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
further submitted that the Accountant General while auditing the accounts
of the sixth respondent herein has observed that the subject land value
found in the guideline value register for survey No.149/1 at Rs.14,74,700/-
per acre and it could have been adopted for arriving at a reasonable value of
the property. The guideline value for the land comprised in survey
No.149/1 at Rs.14,74,700/- per acre and Rs.80/- per sq.ft. for survey
No.149/2 was substituted as Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for both survey Nos.
Therefore, the first respondent and the second respondent noticed that the
value of determination by the fifth respondent was drawn considered it is a
fit case involving huge revenue loss called for records caused such enquiry
as deem fit in this case and initiated proceedings revising the order of the
fifth respondent herein by suo motu.
4.1 He further submitted that the first respondent has got power
under Section 47 (A) (6) of Indian Stamp Act to revise, modify or set aside
the order passed by the sixth respondent herein by suo motu. Therefore, the
first respondent on the audit objections on the accounts submitted by the
sixth respondent herein rightly had taken cognizance by suo motu and
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
determined the value, that too at Rs.11,00,000/- per acre when the guideline
value of the said property valued at Rs.14,74,700/-. Therefore, he prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard, Mr.T.M.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents.
6. The petitioner purchased the property comprised in survey
No.149, T.S. Ward No.3, Block No.25-A, TS.59/1 situated at
Palayamchettikulam Village, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli to an extent of 10
acres of land for the total sale consideration of Rs.3,80,000/-. Accordingly,
the petitioner valued the property and paid stamp duty and presented the
sale deed for registration before the sixth respondent herein. For
determining the proper value of the property, the sixth respondent referred
before the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent on perusal of the
documents, determined the value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. It was also
confirmed by the third and second respondents herein by the order dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
22.03.2003 and 26.07.2001 respectively. Accordingly, the petitioner was
directed to pay deficit stamp duty and he paid the same on 15.10.2001. On
receipt of such deficit stamp duty, the sixth respondent registered sale deed
vide document No.610 of 2001 on 22.10.2001. Thereafter, the sixth
respondent herein referred the sale deed under Section 47 (A) of the Indian
Stamps Act. On receipt of the same, the fifth respondent determined the
value at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre after due enquiry. The provisional order
passed and Form-I was issued to the petitioner dated 13.05.2003.
Immediately on receipt of the same, the petitioner paid deficit stamp duty as
the market value determined by the fifth respondent on 14.05.2003.
7. It seems that there was an audit conducted by the Accountant
General. While submitting the accounts by the sixth respondent, the
Accountant General observed that the land value found in the guideline
value register in respect of the property comprised in survey No.149/1 at
Rs.14,74,700/- per acre. Therefore, the first respondent rightly noticed that
the value of the property determined by the fifth respondent causes huge
revenue loss to the Government. Therefore, the first respondent issued
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
notice under Section 47 (A) (6) of the Indian Stamp Act on his suo motu. It
is relevant to extract the provision under Section 47 (A) (6) of the Indian
Stamp Act as follows:
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, suo
motu, call for and examine an order passed under sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) and if such order is prejudicial
to the interests of revenue, he may make such inquiry or
cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions
of this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set
aside such order and may pass such order thereon as he
thinks fit.
8. Accordingly, the first respondent has power to examine the
order passed by the fifth respondent on his suo moto. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of in
the case of V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-
Inspector and others reported in 2009 (7) SCC 438, wherein it is held as
follows:
Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly
reveal the intention of the Legislature that there must be a
reason to believe that the market value of the property
which is the subject matter of the conveyance has not been
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
truly set out in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure
to be followed in respect of each and every document of
conveyance presented for registration without any evidence
to show lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by
attempting fraudulently to under value the subject of
conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp
duty and thereby cause loss to the revenue. Therefore, the
basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is
willful under valuation of the subject of transfer with
fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is not a routine procedure
to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance
presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fides
of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to undervalue the
subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty
and thereby cause loss to the revenue.
9. In the case on hand, the guideline value for the property
comprised in survey No.149/1 fixed at Rs.14,74,700/- per acre. Whereas
initially the petitioner valued the entire extent of the property i.e.
admeasuring 10 acres at Rs.3,80,000/-. Therefore, while auditing the
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
accounts submitted by the sixth respondent, the Accountant General rightly
pointed the correct value of the property. As such the first respondent had
taken the issue on his suo motu and determined the value at Rs.11,00,000/-
per acre.
10. As against the order passed under Section 47 (A) (6) of the
Indian Stamp Act, there is appeal remedy under Section 47 A (10) of the
said Act. Accordingly, any person aggrieved by an order of the authority
prescribed under sub-section (5) or the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority under sub-section (6) may, within such time and in such manner,
as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, appeal to the High
Court. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai & others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it is
held as follows:
14.The power to issue prerogative writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is
not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This
power can be exercised by the High Court not only for
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in
Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other
purpose”.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the alternative remedy has
been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies i.e. where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the
principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
11. In the case on hand, the first respondent has got jurisdiction to
take up the issue on his suo motu under Section 47 (A) (6) of the Indian
Stamp Act. The first respondent also passed order after issuance of notice to
the petitioner and sufficient opportunity was duly given to the petitioner
before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the above judgments are not
helpful to the case of the petitioner herein, and this Court finds no merits in
the writ petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
12. The writ petition in WP.No.40286 of 2006 is filed challenging
the order passed by the fifth respondent dated 13.05.2003, which was duly
accepted by the petitioner and also paid deficit stamp duty on the document
registered vide document No.610 of 2001 dated 22.10.2001. Therefore, the
prayer sought for in that writ petition has become infructuous.
13. In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are
devoid of merits. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
10.08.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 & 28495 of 2005
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -
Tamilnadu (Inspector General of Registration),
100 Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli Jn – 627 001
5.The District Registrar,
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
6.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps),
Collectorate Campus,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002
7.The Sub Registrar,
Burkit Maanagar, Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli
8. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai
WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 and 28495 of 2005
10.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
