Madras High Court
S.Vellaichamy vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 1 February, 2022
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8882 of 2021
S.Vellaichamy ...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of
Tamilnadu cum Inspector General of Registration,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli Distict. ...Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47A(10) of
Indian Stamp Act r/w Rule 9(5) (a) of Tamilnadu Prevention of Under
Valuation Instrument Rules, to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by
setting aside the order of the first respondent, dated 23.06.2020 passed in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.40542/N4/2017 and to fix the value of the building
with asbestos sheet to an extent of 30 sq.mtr in S.No.565/B7 of
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
Sankarankovil Kaspa, Sub Reistrar, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District, which
was settled to the appellant through registered settlement deed in Document
No.767/2001 of the 3rd respondent office.
For Appellant :Mr.S.Sukumar
For Respondents :Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order
of the first respondent, dated 23.06.2020, passed in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.40542/N4/2017 and to fix the value of the building with asbestos
sheet to an extent of 30 sq.mtr in S.No.565/B7 of Sankarankovil Kaspa, Sub
Registrar, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District, which was settled to the appellant
through registered settlement deed in Document No.767/2001 of the third
respondent office.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
Originally the punja land to an extent of 8650 sq.ft in S.No.
565/B7 and to an extent of 30 sq.mtr of building with asbestos sheet (323
sq.ft) in Sankarankovil Kaspa, Sankarankovil Sub Registrar, Tenkasi
Registration District, belonged to the appellant's uncle namely
Periyasamymadakonar and he settled those properties in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
petitioner and executed a settlement deed, which has registered with the third
respondent office, vide Document No.767/2001. In order to register that
settlement deed on 20.09.1999, the document was presented to the third
respondent office with stamp duty of Rs.8,450/- as prescribed by the then
officer of the third respondent office for the property total value of
Rs.70,250/- (land value fixed as Rs.5 per sq.ft (860 x 5 = Rs.43,250/-) and
Rs.27,000/- had fixed for the value of the super structure of the building to an
extent of 30 sq.mtr. Though the third respondent registered the settlement
deed, dated 20.09.1999, as document No.767 of 2001, instead of return the
document, under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, he sent the
document to the second respondent on the ground of deficit stamp duty.
3.The second respondent herein has calculated an enquiry, but
arbitrarily fixed the stamp duty to the tune of Rs.64,704/- by ascertaining the
value to the land at Rs.15/- per sq.ft (8650 x 15 = Rs.1,29,750/-) and valued
the building in S.No.565/B7 of Sankarankovil Kaspa as Rs.4,09,400/-.
Against the said order of the second respondent, the appellant has filed an
appeal before the first respondent, which was taken on file on PA.Mu.No.
53787/N5/2006, and confirmed the value of the building to Rs.4,09,400/-,
but he fixed the land cost of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. Challenging the said order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
the first respondent, the appellant is before this Court, by way of the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first respondent
has not followed the due procedure of law and he has not taken into account
the guideline value properly. Added further, the 1st and 2nd respondents have
failed to fix the value as per the correct guide line value prevailing upon after
the execution of the document in question. Hence, he prays for setting aside
the order of the impugned order, which is challenged in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
5.Per contra, Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader
for the respondents through his counter affidavit submits that since the
respondents felt that the property in question is undervalued, a proper
enquiry was conducted and accordingly, the stamp duty was demanded by the
respondents. Hence, the impugned order holds good in all respects and
prayed for dismissal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
7.A perusal of the records show that as per settlement deed, out of four
boundaries given in the settlement deed, only 30 sq.mt of building with
asbestos sheet was settled to the appellant. As per the contention of the
respondents, there are two building in S.No.565/B7. One property measuring
about 35.36 sq.mt value about Rs.18,564/- and another property measuring
246.72 sq.mt value about Rs.4,92,206/-. The appellant has paid a stamp duty
of Rs.27,000/-. Eventhough there are two buildings in S.No.565/B7, only
one building measured about 30 sq.ft alone conveyed to the appellant. So the
appellant has rightly paid the stamp duty.
8.In view of the foregoing discussions, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority of Tamilnadu, dated 23.06.2020 in Na.Ka.No.40542/N4/2017, is
hereby set-aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
01.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of
Tamilnadu cum Inspector General of Registration,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli Distict.
4.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
C.M.A.(MD).No.943 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8882 of 2021
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
