Mohammed Sardar vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5149 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 Dated :26.02.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                                THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                              C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013
                    1.Mohammed Sardar
                    2.M.Rahman Basha
                                                                                  .. Appellants
                                                         Vs.
                    1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
                    (Inspector General of Registration),
                    Santhome, Chennai - 600 004.

                    2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
                    Vellore and Thiruvannamalai Districts,
                    Collectorate, Sathuvachari,
                    Vellore - 632 009.

                    3.The Sub Registrar,
                    Ambur - 635 802,
                    Vellore District.                                          .. Respondents




                    PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under order 43 Rule (1) of
                    Civil Procedure Code r/w Sub Section 10 of Section 47A Indian Stamp Act
                    read with Sub Rule 5(a) of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of
                    under Valuation of Instruments Rules).



                    1/6


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                   C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013




                                       For Appellants      : Mr.K.Sivasubramanian


                                       For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappaiah
                                                         Special Government Pleader for R1
                                                           (Registration)
                                                        No Appearance for R2 and R3

                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellants preferred this appeal against the order of the

learned Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General of

Registration), Santhome, Chennai, dated 20.06.2012, in

D.Dis.No.47671/N3/2010 served on the appellants 11.07.2012, against the

order of the learned Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Vellore, dated

14.08.2008 in C.Pa.No.767/06 AMV. The respondent also contested in this

appeal.

2. Point for Consideration:

Whether the notice issued by the Inspector General of

Registration, claiming at Rs.70/- per sq.ft, with regard to the properties belong

to this appellant in S.Nos.8/2, 6/5, 6/1A, 6/1B1, 6/9A, 6/1B2, 6/9B2, 2/7A,

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

5/1A, 5/1B with an extent of 8.95 acres registered under sale deed for

document No.1557/2006 by issuing 47A(1) remanding the Deficit Court Fee

is an unregistered and arbitrary one.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they

entered into the sale agreement for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the

scheduled mentioned properties from its original vendor and paid the part

amount, thereafter, their vendor failed to execute the sale deed as per the

agreement. So, he filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.104 of 2004

and obtained decree on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, Vellore

District. Thereafter, Execution Petition in E.P.No.125 of 2005 was filed and

the sale deed was executed through Court on 28.04.2006. But the first

respondent without considering the execution of the sale deed through Court

issued 47A(1) notice by fixing at Rs.70/- per sq.ft erroneously. Aggrieved by

that he preferred this appeal.

4. Pet contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that the

appellant was obtained ex-parte decree and underestimated value of the

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

property purposely and they paid insufficient stamp fee which caused revenue

loss to the Government. So the first respondent after due enquiry and

considering the prevailing guidelines value in the year 2006, rightly fixed

Rs.70 per sq.ft and issued 47A(1) to claim Deficit Stamp Fee from this

appellant. So he prays to dismiss the appeal as no merits.

5. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the sale deed is obtained through Court of law as per

the decree passed in civil suit for the value mentioned in that agreement is

sufficient and the Government has no power to collect Deficit Stamp Fee

through 47A(1) proceedings.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that even

though the sale deed executed through Court of law, it should be valued as per

the prevailing guidelines value and not the sale consideration mentioned in

the documents as per the sale deed. The extension of the properties comes

more than eight acres, but sale consideration was fixed only at Rs.5,00,000/-.

But on a perusal of the survey report relating to the guidelines value of the

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

property, the notice was issued by the first respondent under 47A(1), wherein

it clearly mentioned that the survey number is relating to those properties and

guidelines value is fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Based upon that the

amount is fixed at Rs.70/- sq.ft. by the first respondent. Hence, the above

said value fixed by the first respondent based upon the guidelines value

prevailing in the year 2006.

7. There is no evidence on the side of the appellant that the

entire eight acres fetch the value of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2004-2006.

Moreover, the appellant obtained exparte decree, as rightly pointed out by the

Government Pleader, the decree is tainted with collusiveness between parties.

Even that Court decree also to be registered as sale deed based upon the

prevailing market value of that time. On the other hand, the first respondent

proved that in the year 2006, one acre is valued 5,00,000/- as per the

guidelines value prevailing at that time.

8. Accordingly, per sq.ft comes to Rs.70/- is justifiable one.

Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. The appellant is directed to pay

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

ub

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.70/- per sq.ft. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this

judgment.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

26.02.2021

ub Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

C.M.A.No.1255 of 2013

http://www.judis.nic.in