Madras High Court
Bharath Petroleum Corporation ... vs The District Revenue Officer ... on 8 September, 2022
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
& W.M.P.No.18282 of 2017 &
W.M.P.No.19633 of 2022
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Rep. by its Territory Manager (Retail), Chennai
No.1, Renganathan Gardens,
Opposite to 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar (West),
Chennai - 600 040. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
District Collector's Office,
Fifth Floor, Singaravelar Building,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai - 600 019. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on
the file of the respondent leading to the impugned notices being Form 1
Page 1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
Notice dated 22.08.2016 and Final Notice dated nil in T.P.No.106/16/A4
issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 2 nd
respondent to release the Transfer Deed registered as Document No.4499 of
2016 on 27.06.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayan
For M/s.King and Partridge
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed against the Form I Notice dated
22.08.2016 issued under Section 47A (1) & (3) of the Indian Stamps Act,
1899 and the Final Notice dated nil in T.P.No.106/16/A4) issued by the 1st
respondent herein.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are as follows :
i) The petitioner namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had
purchased a land an extent of 100 acres in R.S.Nos.354/1 pt and 1556-B pt
in Athipattu Village and Vallur Village in Ennore Area near Chennai from
Page 2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
the Government of India, Represented by Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion, Salt Division, for a total sale consideration of
Rs.73,37,90,306/-. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of
Rs.73,24,006/- per acre i.e. Rs.73,24,00,600/- for 100 acres, arrived on base
value of Rs.36,69,418/- per acre on 09.04.2010 with 20% annual increase to
PAO, DIPP, New Delhi by means of a cheque subject to differential amount
if any as per calculation of value of lands as mentioned in DIPP Order
No.04011/9/2010 dated 03.01.2014. As directed by the Government, the
petitioner had paid the sale consideration of Rs.73,37,90,306/- by way of
two cheques one bearing number 900353 dated 15.01.2014 for
Rs.73,24,00,600/- and the differential provisional value of Rs.13,89,706/-
for the period from 18.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 was paid through cheque
bearing number 900359 dated 21.01.2014.
ii) Pursuant to the payment of sale consideration, the petitioner was
put in possession of the said land on 21.01.2014, and thereafter, a transfer
deed dated 24.06.2016 was executed by the Government of India in respect
of the above land situated at Athipattu and Vallur Village in favour of the
Page 3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
petitioner and the same was registered as Document No.4499 of 2016 dated
27.06.2016. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the petitioner had
paid the entire stamp duty and registration charges for the actual sale
consideration paid to the Government. However, instead of releasing the
sale deed, the 2nd respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner
to present its case, had made a reference under Section 47A to the District
Revenue Officer (Stamps) to ascertain the actual stamp duty payable by the
petitioner. The petitioner was further served with a copy of Form-I Notice
dated 22.08.2016 from the 1st respondent, demanding a sum of
Rs.10,12,34,465/- towards alleged difference in stamp duty. Hence, the
impugned notices are sought to be quashed on the ground that the reference
cannot be made under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without
any evidence to show lack of bonafides on the part of the parties to the
document.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and raised an
objection to the above averments stating that the value of the land as per
guideline registers is at Rs.500/- per sq.ft, but the value of the land put forth
Page 4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
in the document is at Rs.168.30/- per sq.ft. Hence, they issued Form-I
Notice under Section 47A (1) & (3) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, calling
for the explanation from the petitioner. Since the explanation given by the
petitioner was not satisfactory, the 1st respondent sent an another notice in
the same number fixing the hearing on 24.04.2017. The petitioner in their
letter dated 08.05.2017 had requested the 1st respondent to advice the 2nd
respondent to release the document by considering their earlier explanation
given on 28.04.2017.
4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned notices
are only show cause in nature, hence it is liable to be upheld. Further, it is
stated that the petitioner company is not a government department and it is
only a government entity corporate body, and it has not obtained the
exemption of Stamp Duty under Provisions of Section 9 and Registration
Fees under Provisions of Section 78A of Indian Registration Act, to register
the instance case deed on the basis of consideration amount without
reference to the market value. It is also stated that if the petitioner is not
satisfied by the aforesaid proceedings, it is open to him to redress his
Page 5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
grievances by way of an appeal provided in Section 47A(5) of the said Act,
to the Inspection General of Registration. Since this matter is not finalized
by the 1st respondent and an alternative remedy is available by an appeal,
seeking remedy by filing of this Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. Moreover, it is stated that since this instance case document
involving deficit levies, the question of return of original document at this
stage is not maintainable as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench
of the Madurai of this Court in W.A.Nos.1176 to 1179 of 2017 and others
dated 09.10.2017 in the matter of Special Deputy Collector Stamps,
Thirunelveli and others vs M.Alfred and others, wherein, it has been held as
follows :
“ ..... Though, payment of duty is one thing and release
of the document is the other thing both are intertwined with
each other. The enactment merely provides for registration,
notwithstanding the issue pertaining to undervaluation. The
said factor cannot be extended for the release of the document
in the absence of any provision. To that extent, there is no
conflict between the two enactments. With the above said
Page 6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
understanding of the provisions of the two enactments, let us
go into the contentions raised.”
6. Furthermore, it is stated that as per the submissions in supra, the
impugned notices are mere show cause in nature. Since this instance case
involving undervaluation of market value to the tune of several crores of
rupees, the prayer of the petitioner to return the document without
subjecting the market value determination procedure as per the legal statue
is untenable and it deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. First of all, it is not in dispute that the property has been transferred
vide Transfer Deed dated 24.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner by the
Government of India, Represented by Deputy / Assistant Salt
Commissioner, Chennai. As per the sale deed, the sale consideration set out
in the document is a sum of Rs.73,37,90,306/- only. Also, it is stated in the
sale deed that the possession was handed over to the writ petitioner. Now,
the notice in Form No.I under Section 47A is issued merely on the ground
Page 7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
that the guideline value of the property is Rs.500/- per sq.ft. Whereas, the
property has been registered at the rate of Rs.168.30 per sq.ft. Hence, the
differential stamp duty of Rs.10,12,34,465/- to be demanded by the
respondents. For that purpose, the document has been referred under
Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
9. While making the reference, the Registrar should satisfy the
provisions contained in Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It
makes it clear that, if the Registrar has reason to believe that the market
value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may,
after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for
determination of the market value.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in (2009) 7 SCC 438 in the case
of V.N.Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer Cum Inspector and
Others, has held as follows :
“.... 13. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly
Page 8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
reveal the intention of the legislature that there must be a
reason to believe that the market value of the property which is
the subject matter of the conveyance has not been truly set out
in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure to be followed
in respect of each and every document of conveyance
presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of
bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting
fraudulently to undervalue the subject of conveyance with a
view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause
loss to the revenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power
under Section 47-A of the Act is wilful undervaluation of the
subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment
of proper stamp duty.”
11. It is to note that the sale consideration has been paid to the
Government of India. It is nobody case is that apart from the sale
consideration, other amount is also to be paid which has not been reflected
in the transfer deed. It is also to note that when the actual sale consideration
was paid to the Government, the question of suppressing the real market
value and referring the document for differential value does not arise at all
and such interrence are not permissible under law.
Page 9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
12. The main ground on which, the document was referred under
Section 47A is that it does not contain the guideline value. It is relevant to
note that the guideline value is prepared by the Revenue Officials, for that,
the same cannot be equated with market value. In this regard, this Court in
Collector of Nilgiris vs. M/s. Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd., (A.I.R. 1982
Mad. 138), has held as follows :
“The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue
Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were
avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find
out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the
instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were
not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose
the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make
under Sec. 47-A. The valuation guidelines were not prepared
on the basis of any open hearing of the parties concerned or of
any documents. They were based on data gathered broadly
with reference to classification of lands, grouping of lands and
the like. This being so, the Collector acting under Sec.47-A
cannot regard the valuation guidelines as the last word on the
Page 10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
subject of market value. To do so would be to surrender his
statutory obligation to determine market value on the basis of
evidence, which is a judicial or a quasi judicial function which
he has to perform.”
13. Therefore, merely because the guideline value is higher than the
market value, it cannot be said that the differential stamp duty also to be
paid. The purpose of the guideline value is to have a prima facie idea about
the value of the land by the Registrar. When the Government has sold the
property and received the sale consideration, at no strech of imagination it
could be inferred that the property value has been undervalued only to avoid
the stamp duty. Therefore, this Court is of the view that invoking provision
under Section 47A for reference itself is not according to law and it is not
the case of the respondents that undervaluation has been done for the
purpose of avoiding the stamp duty.
14. In the absence of any evidence in material to suggest under
valuation, as a matter of right proceedings under Section 47A cannot be
invoked. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Government of India
Page 11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
has sold the property and received the sale consideration. Merely because
the sale consideration is not on par with the guideline value fixed by the
authorities, the reference cannot be made under Section 47A of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899.
15. In a similar case, reported by this Court in 2002 (2) CTC 329 in
the case of R.Sukumaran and Seven Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board entered into a lease cum sale agreement. On
payment of all monthly installments, sale deed was executed by the Housing
Board conveying the allotted properties. However, the Registration
Department Authorities had demanded stamp duty on the basis of the
market value. The Court has held that the statutory body like housing board
could not receive consideration more than what has been recited in the
document executed by the board in favour of the authorities, and no
discretion at all is available to the Registering Authority to entertain any
doubt regarding the payment of consideration for the deed of conveyance
which is being executed by the statutory body like Housing Board.
Page 12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
16. On considering the said judgment, this Court is of the view that,
as the document has been executed by the Government of India and
consideration also has been received by them, it may not be said that the
property has been undervalued to defeat the provisions of Stamp Act to
invoke Section 47A reference. This Court is also of the view though
impugned notices are only a show cause in nature and it may not be
questioned at this stage as invocation of the reference under Section 47A
itself is not in according to law, this Court can quash the show cause notices
which are result of the reference which is not legally sustainable.
17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned show
cause notices issued by the 1st respondent are set aside. The 2nd respondent is
directed to release the transfer deed dated 27.06.2016 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.09.2022
raja
Page 13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
raja
W.P.No.16834 of 2017
& W.M.P.No.18282 of 2017 &
W.M.P.No.19633 of 2022
08.09.2022
Page 14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
