Madras High Court
Yogendra Bhasin vs The Inspector General Of ... on 25 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Yogendra Bhasin
.. Appellant
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 Sub Registrar, Coonoor,
Nilgiris District. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47A of the
Indian Stamp Act,1899, against the order of the Inspector General of
Registration Santhome, Chennai, in the proceedings No.32190/E1/05, dated
18.02.2011.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
For Appellant : M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappaiah
Special Government Pleader
(Registration)
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the purchaser of agricultural land of an
extent of 0.25 acres in T.S.No.A/34/7/1A of Coonoor Town, The Nilgiris
under sale deed dated 02.12.2003 and registered as document No.1946/2003,
in the Sub Registrar Office, Coonoor for a value of Rs.3,75,000/-, since it is
an agricultural land planted with tea. On verifying the prevailed market
value at the time of purchase, he paid the market value to his vendor. The
Document was referred to the Collector of Stamps and the Special Deputy
Collector (Stamps) under Section 47(A) (1) to value the property. The
Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) had, upon analysing the nature of the
property and other aspects, fixed the value of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand only) per cent which was 100 % higher than the market price.
Without prejudice, he remitted the deficit stamp duty and he obtained the
documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
2. On 17.09.2008, under Section 47 A(6) of Indian Stamp Act,
the earlier order was reviewed directing the appellant to pay Rs.40,000/- per
cent and directed him to pay the deficit Stamp Duty under its order dated
17.09.2008. Aggrieved by that he preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the property in question is an agricultural land and cultivated with tea and not
the commercial area. But without, considering this aspect, the respondent
erroneously fixed the rate of Rs.720/- per sq.ft, which is abnormal and
without any basis. So, he prays to set aside the order passed by the
respondent and the impugned order dated 17.09.2008.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the appellant purchased the property in the year 2003. On
considering the prevailing market value at the time, as well as the other
registered sale deed, which was registered prior to his purchase in the year
2002 and document No.880/02 and 1644/02, the market value was fixed at
Rs.73,250/- and Rs.49,000/- respectively. Furthermore, the property is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
situated within limit of Coonoor Municipality and it is a proposed residential
area comes under (Zone PR-4) with increased high potentiality in future. So
based upon all these facts per sq.ft is fixed at Rs.271/- for the property
concerned. Accordingly, the respondent demanded deficit stamp duty, which
is reasonable one and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. Point for consideration:
Whether the order passed by the Inspector General of
Registration dated 17.09.2008, fixing the rate of Rs.271 per sq.ft is arbitrary
and erroneous one.
6. It is admitted fact that the appellant purchased the property
on 02.12.2003 and the sale deed registered No.1946/03, for an extent of 25
cents for a value of Rs.3,75,000/- in S.No.7/1A Revenue Taluk, Coonoor.
According to the appellant, it is a agricultural land plantation with tea and it
is located far away from the town area, so he paid valid consideration of
Rs.3,75,000/- which was prevailing at the time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
7. But this fact is totally denied by the Government Pleader and
submits that even in the year 2002, for the same S.No. A/34/7/1A, the sale
deed were registered vide document Nos.880/02 and 1644/02 for the market
value was fixed at Rs.73,250/- and Rs.49,000/- percent respectively.
8. On seeing the sale deed, it is clear that the property belongs to
this appellant. But after purchase of this land, there was a DRO enquiry under
47A and fixed Rs.30,000/- per cent and deficit stamp fee was collected from
this appellant. Subsequently, this respondent suo motu reviewed the earlier
order and verified the nature of the property, as well as the future potentiality
and fixed Rs.40,000/- per cent. The appellant was called for enquiry, but he
has not submitted his objections. Thereafter, per sq.ft of Rs.271/- was fixed
by the respondent. So, considering the prevailing market value at the time of
purchase made by this appellant as well as the future potentiality and the
residential property surrounded in that locality per sq.ft of Rs.271/- is fixed.
But the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is a only agricultural
land and it will not fetch for that value. But he has not shown any material
evidence to support of his contention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
9. On considering the nature of the property as well as objection
raised by the appellant per sq.ft is fixed at Rs.200/- and the appellant is
directed to pay the Deficit Stamp Fee along with accrued interest in
accordance with law, excluding the pending litigation period and the
appellant is directed to pay Rs.200/- per sq.ft. within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of this judgment.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
25.02.2021
ub
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
C.M.A.No.2032 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
