Madras High Court
T.Kamaraj vs The Inspector General Of ... on 6 September, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2009
T.Kamaraj ... Appellant
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration cum
Chief Revenue Controlling Authority,
Chennai-28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Seithur, Rajapalayam T.K
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47(A) 10 of
Indian Stamp Act r/w Rule 9(5) (a) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Under
Valuation of Instruments Rules, praying this Court to allow this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal by setting aside the order made in Pa.Mu.No.
58960/N4/2005 dated 04.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent
confirming the order made in Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.35/04 dated 28.07.2005,
Na.KaTha.Pa.No.409/04 dated 28.09.05 and Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.161/05
dated 25.08.08 on the file of the second respondent.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For Respondents : Mr.SR.A.Ramachandhran
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
************
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to set aside the order
made in Pa.Mu.No.58960/N4/2005 dated 04.12.2008 on the file of the
first respondent confirming the order made in Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.35/04
dated 28.07.2005, Na.KaTha.Pa.No.409/04 dated 28.09.05 and
Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.161/05 dated 25.08.08 on the file of the second
respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The appellant purchased the properties in Survey Nos.289/5G,
289/6C, 289/6A, 289/6C, 290/2B1, 290/1B3, 289/5E and 289/5D
situated at Chettiyarpatti village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar
District from one Seeniyappa Nadar under a registered sale deeds dated
18.12.2003, 05.07.2004 and 19.05.2005 respectively vide document Nos.
2499/2003, 1276/2004 and 845/2005 respectively on the file of the Sub
Registrar, Seithur and also paid stamp duty. The said lands are punja
lands and coconut trees are standing in the said lands. The respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
herein has not accepted the stamp duty paid by the appellant and referred
the matter to the second respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian
Stamp Act as the appellant under valued the properties and paid lesser
stamp duty. The second respondent herein has sent a letter to the
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,423/- for document No.2499/03 and Rs.
11404/- for document No.1276/2004 and Rs.21,600/- for document No.
845/2005 or send his objection immediately from the date of receipt of
the said letter. On receipt of the said letter, the appellant sent his
objections to the second respondent on 18.07.2005 and 27.08.2005. But
the second respondent, without properly considering the objection, has
passed the final order on 28.09.2005 and thereby, directed the appellant
to pay a sum of Rs.24/- per sq.feet Against the said order, the appellant
filed an appeal before the first respondent, who in turn, appointed the
District Registrar, Virudhunagar, to inspect the property and give a
report. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the final order not only
confirmed the order of the second respondent but also enhanced the
deficit stamp duty from Rs.24 to Rs.25/- per sq.feet. Challenging the
order of the first respondent, the appellant is before this Court, by way of
the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lands
purchased by the appellant are punja lands and coconut trees are standing
in the said lands. The lands in question are situated away from
Chettiyarpatti Village and the said lands are surrounded by punja and
nanja lands only. The guideline value fixed by the respondents 1 and 2
would apply to the vacant house site lands, not for the punja lands. The
first respondent failed to consider the report sent by the District
Registrar, wherein, he has stated that there is no possibility for the lands
purchased by the appellant to convert as house sites in future. The first
respondent has simply confirmed the order of the second respondent
without considering the material evidence. The learned counsel for the
appellant produced the adangal extract to show that the said lands are
punja lands. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submitted that since the properties in question are
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
and perused the records.
6. On perusal of the report of the District Registrar, Virudhunagar
shows that the lands purchased by the appellant are situated at the end of
Chettiyarpatti Village. He has also stated in his report that in document
No.2499/03, there are 15 coconut trees and in document No.845/05, there
are 4 coconut trees and the trees in document No.1276 of 2004 were
removed and the lands purchased by the appellant are surrounded by
agricultural lands and there is a Thondaimangulam Kanmai and also
stated that there is no possibility of converting the land purchased by the
appellant into house in future and it could be used as agriculture land
only. The adangal extracts also shows that in Survey No.289/5G, there
are some coconuts trees. Without considering the material evidence, the
first respondent, on assumption and presumption, held that the lands
purchased by the appellant is smaller extent and the same cannot be
considered as agriculture lands and therefore, the same are considered as
house sites. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, even a smaller
extent of land cannot be suo motu changed/converted into a house site.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
7. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
order passed by the first respondent in Pa.Mu.No.58960/N4/2005 dated
04.12.2008 confirming the order made in Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.35/04 dated
28.07.2005, Na.KaTha.Pa.No.409/04 dated 28.09.05 and
Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.161/05 dated 25.08.08 on the file of the second
respondent is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration cum
Chief Revenue Controlling Authority,
Chennai-28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Seithur, Rajapalayam T.K
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
A.A.NAKKIRAN .,J.
cp
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.465 of 2009
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2009
06.09.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
