Madras High Court
Venkat Panchapakesan (Died) vs The Inspector General Of ... on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
and
M.P.No.1 of 2006
1.Venkat Panchapakesan (died)
2.Sandhya Panchapakesan
(2nd appellant brought on record as LR
of the deceased 1st appellant viz.,
Venkat Panchapakesan vid. Court order
dated 11.07.2018 made in CMP.Nos.11465
to 11467 of 2018 in CMA.1888/2006(SRTJ) ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Revenue Officer,(Stamps),
Collectorate Compound,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
3.The District Registrar,
Coimbatore.
4.The Joint Sub Registrar,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Page No.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamps Act, pleased to set aside the order of the Chief Revenue
Controlling Authority and the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome,
Chennai in proceedings No.1863/U1/2006 dated 28.03.2006.
For Appellants : Mr.P.VijayRaghunath
for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.M.Pappaiah
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein preferred this appeal challenging the order
of the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai, in proceedings No.1863/U1/2006 dated 28.03.2006.
2. The respondents also contested the appeal.
3. The Substantial Questions of Law are as follows:
“(i) The guideline value, contained in the Basic
Page No.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
valuation Register, maintained by the Revenue Department or
the Municipality for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, has
no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to
determine the market value mentioned thereunder in
instrument brought for registration.
(ii) Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent
vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated
near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous
features would furnish basis to determine the market value.”
4. Heard Mr.P.VijayRaghunath for M/s. Sarvabhauman
Associates, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.M.Pappaiah, learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. The fact of the case are that the appellants purchased a
property on 14.02.2005 through the sale deed registered as Document No.558
of 2005 pertains to an extent of 8.125 sq.ft of land with building in New
T.S.No.945, within the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Limits. The access
leading to the property from Race Course Road is only 20 feet in width and a
private road. The said access is not a public access and does not have any
Page No.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
amenity such as thar road, street lights, drainage, etc., As the property is
situated on such a private road, having a width of only 20 feet, the said
property cannot be exploited or developed commercially. The property is only
a residential site and building situated in the property as partly Madras
Terraced and partly R.C.C. Since the property situated in a private road and
not abutting the Race Course main road. Therefore, the value of the property
situated on and abutting Race Course Main road cannot be taken into
consideration for fixing the value of the property. But, the respondents fixed
at the rate of Rs.2,255/- per Sq.ft. and initiated proceeding under Indian
Stamp Act under Section 47-(A) (6) is highly exorbitant one and without any
basis. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned notice issued by the
authorities.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents argued that based upon the guide line value prevailing at the time
of the purchase made by the appellants, as well as considering the posh
locality with surrounding of commercial building and apartments in the Race
course road which is a prime locality of Coimbatore Town. The respondents
Page No.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
demanded a sum of Rs.2,255/- per sq.ft. which is justifiable one and pray to
dismiss the appeal as no merits.
7. To support his arguments , the appellant counsel submitted
an additional typed set of papers attaching the sale deed along with sketch of
the property concerned. On perusal of the sketch, it is seen that the property is
situated 20 ft. deviation road from the Race Course road. So, the appellants
sketch itself clearly proves that the property concerned, as per the sale deed is
surrounded with four boundaries with the door No.109, Race Course Road. It
is admitted fact that the Race Course is a posh locality of Coimbatore Town,
it is inclusive of both commercial and apartment building with high potential
area. But the learned counsel would contend that from Race Course Road,
there is 20 ft. private path way leading to the property, thereby it will not
fetch any commercial value. Further would submit that it is a private access
without any amenity but the respondent without considering this aspect,
initiated the proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Act and fixed a market
value of Rs.2,255/- per sq.ft. is highly unreasonable. Further, he also
submitted that based upon the market value of the property, the respondents
Page No.5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
have no right to demand enhanced stamp duty. For that aspect he relied the
following Judgments.
(i). 2003 (4) CTC 565/2003 (10) SCC 352 “Dalip
Singh and others v. Sikh Gurdwara Prabhandak committee
and others” Civil Appeal No.7418 of 1993, decided on
October 15, 2003 A.Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab Act 8
of 1925) -Ss.10(3) and 7(3) – Notification issued under S.10(3)
servers as a conclusive proof that no claim was made in
respect of any right, title or interest in any property specified
in the list forming part of notification published under S.7(3)
in respect of Gurdwara – But failure to produce the
notification under S.10(3) by itself would not lead to the
necessary conclusion that the properties were not of the
Gurdwara but were private properties- Burden on the person
who claimed the property as his private properties to prove his
right, title and interest over the property – that having not
been proved, this flaw cannot be got over by relying on the fact
that notification under S.10(3) was not produced- Appellants'
case that one B was owner of the property who had gifted the
property to his son and wife (Respondents 2 and 3) from whom
they had purchased the same, held on facts, not made out
-SGPC's application under S.142 calling upon B to surrender
possession of the land was earlier allowed by Judicial
commission – B having no right, title and interest over the
Page No.6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
land, transfer thereof in favour of his son and wife were not
binding-Revenue records showing B as cultivator of the land is
not sufficient to prove that occupancy right or title to the land
vested in B- Revenue records were consistent with the fact that
B must have been in possession of the property as an employee
or manager of the Gurdwara – Held, it was proved by
satisfactory evidence that the property belonged to the Sikh
Gurdwara and appellants failed to prove that their
predecessors- in-interest namely Respondents 2 and 3
acquired any title from B-”
(ii) 1997(2)LW 579
“(Indian) Stamp Act, S.47-A(3) (as amended in
Tamil Nadu) – Determining of market value powers of the
Registrar – Scope.
Deed of conveyance presented for registration persuant
to decree for specific performance-Direction for paying stamp
duty on market value, as on date the document is executed,
whether legal absence of any material to show fraudulent
evasion of stamp duty or lack of banafides-Power under S.47-
A cannot be invoked.”
(iii) 2010(6) CTC 35
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A
Page No.7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
– Determination of Market value -Reference to Income Tax
Attachment proceedings- Relevancy – Held, in arriving at
market value, Registering Authority should indicate basis for
arriving at particular value- Except for relying on document
produced by Appellant, Registering Authority has not relied on
any other document – Mere general impression by itself cannot
be ground for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 47-A to
hold that value stated in document is untrue – Reference to
Income Tax Attachment proceedings by itself does not justify
value arrived by parties- Market value is not determined by
guideline value – Full Bench decision in Sakthi & Co. v.Shree
Desigachary, 2006(2) CTC 433”.
(iv) 2009(2) CTC 12/2009(1) CTC 305
“Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-
A – Applicability of, to sale deeds executed by Government
Agency to and in favour of allottees – Exercise of Powers
under Section 47-A can be resorted to if there is under
-valuation of subject matter with fraudulent intention to evade
proper payment of stamp duty – Government did not have any
material to conclude that market value of property conveyed to
allottees was higher than one recited in deed executed by
Government Agency- Order quashing demand notices calling
for additional stamp duty and consequential refusal to release
Page No.8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
sale deeds until payment of such additional stamp duty upheld
– Case law discussed.”
(v) 2004(1) CTC 187
“Indian Stamp Act, 1860, Section 47-A – Payment of
Stamp duty on market value of land – Whether can be
demanded on the basis of future use of land – Whether can be
demanded on the basis of future use of land – Whether this
section can be invoked in such cases for making reference as
to stamp duty payable – Agricultural lands purchased for
being used for industrial purposes for storing industrial
effluents- Whether stamp duty can be demanded future usage
of land as industrial lands and house sites – Whether failure to
pay stamp duty on basis of future use would attract provisions
of this Section- Agricultural lands were purchased under
various deed of conveyance and stamp duty paid for market
value as declared by executants – Registering authority
satisfied himself that stamp duty has been paid as per
guideling value, completed registration and released sale
deeds – subsequently registering authority made reference on
the basis that lands are going to be used for industrial
purposes and they have to be valued as house sites – Special
Deputy Collector (Stamps) assessed market value on that
basis and purchaser was directed to pay deficit stamp duty –
Page No.9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
Purchaser preferred appeal and Appellate Authority allowed
appeal filed by purchaser and set aside order – Registering
Authority filed revision petition to High Court – Revision was
held not maintainable as original authority is not person that
market value of land has to be valued as on date of deed of
conveyance and does not depend upon future or intended user
of land by purchaser.”
8. Based upon all these referred citations, the appellants counsel
argued that the market value of the land has to be valued as on date of deed of
conveyance with existing feature of the property concerned and does not
depend upon the future development, user of land by the purchaser. But on
perusal of these authorities, reported in 2010 (6)CTC 305 concerned, it
relates to a cultivation land, which is totally unrelated to the property
concerned in the instant case. Another authority 1997 (2) LW 579 is case
arising out of pursuant to the decree for specific performance where the party
evaded the payment of proper stamp duty with fraudulent intention, so
Register invoke Section 47(A) which is totally irrelavant to the facts of the
case in hand. The another authority 2010(6)CTC 35 which is arising out of
income tax proceedings, in which, it is insisted that there must be a prima
Page No.10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
facie material should registering authority to fix the market value of the
property being understood and in another authority 2009(2)CTC
12/2009(1)CTC 305 also insisted for material to conclude the market value of
the property. In the instant case, the property concerned is not an agricultural
land nor outside of the town. On the other hand, it is a building with site
situated in the posh locality of Coimbatore Town.Therefore, the proposition
laid down in the above citations not apply to the facts of this case.
9. As per the sale deed, the appellants purchased the property
with old building, but entire property is surrounded with apartments and
commercial building posh locality. The place and location of the property
itself sufficient to conclude that it is a converted business area, even at the
time of purchasing the property in the year 2005, therefore, based upon the
prevailing market value of the property as well as commercial locality with
future development the respondents fixed the market value of the property at
Rs.2,255/- per sq. ft. which is justifiable one.
Page No.11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the appellant is directed to make payment with interest excluding the
pending litigation period, 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.
24.02.2021
rri
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Page No.12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
rri
C.M.A.No.1888 of 2006
and
M.P.No.1 of 2006
24.02.2021
Page No.13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
