Madras High Court
M.Raja Mohammed vs The Tamil Nadu Principal Revenue ... on 14 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
M.Raja Mohammed ... Appellant/Appellant
Vs.
The Tamil Nadu Principal Revenue Officer
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the
Stamp Act, to set aside the order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.
55520/N4/N3/2015, dated 14.03.2017 thereby directing the appellant to
pay the deficit stamp duty at the rate of Rs.505/- per sq.ft for S.F.No.
192/2Bpart Aw Block-1, T.S.No.76/2 (Classic Avenue) of Kottapattu
Village, Trichy District.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.N.GA.Natraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The present appeal arises under the Stamp Act challenging the
order passed by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, dated
14.03.2017.
2. According to the appellant, he had purchased 1 acre out of 7.32
acres in Survey No.192/2B in Kottapattu Village, Srirangam Taluk,
Trichirappalli District on 26.06.2015. According to the appellant, the
total consideration for the said sale deed is Rs.60,00,000/- and he had
paid stamp duty of Rs.4,20,000/- calculating at Rs.138/- per square feet.
3. The Sub-Registrar having not been satisfied with the quantum
of stamp duty paid by the purchaser, referred the document under Section
47-A of the Stamp Act to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp duty)
Tiruchirappalli. After hearing both the parties, he passed an order, fixing
the value of the property at Rs.2,27,27,500/- and calculated the stamp
duty to be paid at Rs.15,90,925/-. This stamp duty was calculated by the
original authority treating the value of the property as Rs.520/- per
square feet. This order was challenged by the purchaser/appellant before
the respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
4. The respondent after considering the inspection report submitted
by the district level authorities and also considering the fact that the
nearby lands have been converted into a lay out, arrived at a finding that
it would be appropriate to fix the value of the land at Rs.505/- per square
feet. This order is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
when he has purchased the property on 26.06.2015, it was a fallow land
and there was no proposal whatsoever to convert it into a layout.
Therefore, the authorities under the Stamp Act were not right in
presuming that it is likely to be converted into a lay out in future. The
authorities are under a statutory obligation to fix the value of the land
depending upon the use of the land on the date of purchase and not on a
presumption that it is likely to be converted into a house site on a future
date. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the value of the land is just Rs.60,00,000/-, for which the
purchaser has already paid a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards stamp duty.
The Sub-Registrar ought not to have referred the matter under Section
47-A to the authorities under the said Act. He further contended that the
original authority as well as the appellate authority have not properly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
appreciated the fact that the present land has not been converted into a
lay out. Just because the adjacent lands have been converted into the lay
out and they are valued at the rate of Rs.800/- per square feet, the present
order has been passed. The value of the adjacent lands can never be taken
into consideration when the property in dispute is not a layout. Hence, he
prayed for allowing the appeal and for releasing the document.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent has contended that the Survey No.192/2 is having a total
extent of more than 7 acres. Out of the said 7 acres, 1 acre has been
purchased by the appellant. The balance extent has been converted into a
layout under the name and style of Classic Avenue, for which Rs.800/-
has been fixed per square feet and it has been accepted by the purchasers
and the stamp duty has also been paid. The lands are located adjacent to
Trichirappalli-Pudukkottai National Highways and it is 500 meters away
from the Trichirappalli Airport. He further contended that even though
the land in question would attract a sum of Rs.800/- per square feet,
considering the fact as on today, there is no layout, the authorities have
fixed it at Rs.505/- per square feet. Therefore, the appellant cannot have
any grievance with regard to the fixation of the value of the land or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
stamp duty for the same. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order
passed by the authorities.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the records.
8. Admittedly, the appellant herein has purchased one acre out of
7.32 acres in Survey No.192/2B on 26.06.2015. A perusal of the sale
deed indicates that the value of the property mentioned in the document
is Rs.60,00,000/-. The original authority as well as the appellate authority
after conducting inspection, have arrived at a finding that in the same
survey number, layouts have been created in the name and style of
Classic Avenue, for which a stamp duty has been levied at the rate of
Rs.800/- per square feet. Admittedly, in the property in dispute, no layout
has been created and therefore, the authorities have arrived at a finding
that there is a possibility of creating a layout in future in the disputed
land and have fixed the stamp duty at Rs.505/- per square feet.
9. It is settled position of law that the value of the land has to be
assessed only on the basis of the usage on the date of purchase. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
authorities cannot presume that the land has got the potential to be
converted into a layout in future. The value of the land and the
corresponding stamp duty has to be based only upon the usage of the
land on the date of registration of the document and not on the
presumption that it is likely to be used for commercial purposes in future.
10. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the guideline
value is Rs.800/- per square feet for the said property on the date of
registration. The annexure to the order passed by the original authority
also indicates that though the guideline value is Rs.800/- per square feet,
the properties have been sold ranging from Rs.200/- per square feet to
Rs.800/- per square feet. Therefore, it is clear that the guideline value for
the above said survey number on the date of registration of the sale deed
is only on the basis of square feet and not on the basis of per cent. In
such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the purchaser has to at
least pay the minimum value, for which the lands were sold in the said
survey number, namely Rs.250/- per square feet. However, in case, in
future, if the lands are converted into a lay out and sold to ultimate
purchasers, the authorities would be at liberty to invoke the highest
square feet value for the said survey number.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
11. The appellant / purchaser has paid the stamp duty at Rs.138/-
per square feet. However, in view of the above said deliberation, this
Court finds that the value of the property would fetch at least Rs.250/-
per square feet. In view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the
appeal is hereby set aside and for the disputed property, the stamp duty
shall be fixed at Rs.250/- per square feet and the balance stamp duty shall
be collected. The purchaser shall pay the balance stamp duty within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The authorities shall not demand any penalty or interest for the said
amount, if the enhanced amount is paid within a period of eight (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. With the said observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands allowed to the extent as stated above. On such payment, the
documents shall be released forthwith. No costs.
14.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Principal Revenue Officer
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.443 of 2019
14.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
