Madras High Court
P.Ponram vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 4 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 04.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
P.Ponram .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 038.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
(Stamps), Collectorate,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47-A (10) of
the Indian Stamps Act, pleased to set aside the order of the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai exercising
suo-moto revision in letter No.4808/c1/08 dated 24.11.2012 modifying the
order of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Coimbatore in
Mu.Pa.No.4635/C/02 dated 30.06.2003.
Page No.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.J.Hariharan
for Mr.V.Nicholas
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.J.M.Pappaiah
For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein preferred this appeal against the order of
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai, exercising suo-moto revision in letter No.4808/c1/08
dated 24.11.2012, modifying the order of the District Revenue Officer
(Stamps), Coimbatore, in Mu.Pa.No.4635/C/02 dated 30.06.2003.
2. The respondent also contested the appeal.
3. As per the facts of the case, the appellant purchased a
landed property on 12.09.2002 situated in Coimbatore North Taluk, Sanganur
Village in S.R.No.110/2 with an extent of 1.00 acre agricultural land
purchased for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and the sale deed was registered in
Gandhipuram Sub Registar Office. But the said Sub Registrar, in order to fix
Page No.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
the market value, directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct the survey.
Accordingly, land was surveyed and the value of the property was fixed at
Rs.21,00,000/- and he was directed to pay the additional stamp fee.
Accordingly, he paid and get the sale deed on 15.07.2003.
4. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, after a period of four years, from re-survey the respondents
authorities demanded stamp duty of Rs.149 per.sq.ft. by issuing notice under
Section 47-A(6) of the Act is not justifiable. Therefore, he prayed to set aside
the impugned notice issued by the authorities.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the
Inspector General has power to suo-moto survey and fix a market value of
the property if he found any discrepancies as per Rule (2) of Principal of
Under value land rules. Point for consideration:
(i) whether the suo-moto revision under Section 47-A(6)
of the Indian Stamp Act is vitiated by errors apparent on the
face of the records, nor the said order given any valid reason
to modify the order of the District Revenue Officer ?
(ii) whether the Revenue Authority has failed to see that
the land in question is admittedly an agricultural land and the
Page No.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
data sale deed relied on by the authorities has not been
applied to the land purchased by this appellant ?
6. On a perusal of the record in typed set of papers at pg.35, a
notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Registration Authority, it reveals that the sale
deed relating to the adjacent land of the land purchased by the appellant was
taken into consideration by the Authorities. Accordingly, (i) in survey
No.120/121, the guidline value is fixed at Rs.85 per sq.ft. based upon the
sale deed Register No.379/98. (ii) another sale deed register No.3109/98 in
S.No.120,121 per sq.ft. is fixed at Rs.93/-. (iii) in sale deed register
No.1351/99 and 1352/99, related with SN.No.107/1A, the market value is
fixed at Rs.114, all these sale deeds were registered prior to the purchase
made by the appellant. Admittedly, he purchased the land in the year 2002
and the market value was fixed at Rs.91/- per sq.ft. which is less than the
market value of the property prevailing at that time as discussed above.
7. Based upon all these records the Inspector General of
Registration has fixed the market value at Rs.149 per sq.ft. so, the respondent
Page No.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
rightly directed the appellant to pay the additional stamp fee, but, the counsel
for the appellant replied that after four years from the re-survey he was
directed to pay the additional stamp fee is unsustainable one.
8. But, on perusal of the records it is seen that, while
purchasing the land by the appellant, lesser of market value was fixed which
caused loss to the revenue and the same cannot be permissible in law.
However, the learned counsel for the respondents suggested for option to this
appellant to pay the market value at Rs.114 per sq.ft. On considering the
notice issued by the Revenue Authorities the property purchased by the
appellant is situated in one of the prime places in Coimbatore District. By
considering the recent developments and the value of the property, it is just
and necessary that the appellant bound to pay the stamp fee for the market
value of the property which was prevailed at the time of his purchase. The
counsel for the appellant also fairly accepted the proposal given by the
Authorities.
Page No.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
rri
9. Accordingly this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly modified
and the appellant is directed to pay the market value at Rs.114/- per sq.ft. for
the land in S.No.3014 /02 purchased by him, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No Costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.02.2021
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
C.M.A.No.1994 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Page No.6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
