Madras High Court
R.Ayyavoo Naicker (Died) vs The Inspector General Of ... on 20 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
R.Ayyavoo Naicker (Died) ... Appellant
2.Chithra
3.Kanaga
4.Sulochana
5.Vennila
6.Vijayakumar ... Proposed Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 6 are brought on record as
legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant vide
Court order, dated 12.08.2016 made in
C.M.P(MD)No.6974 of 2016)
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration cum
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Santhome,
Chennai-600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manapparai,
Tiruchirapalli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47A (10)
of Indian Stamp Act 1899, to call for the records relating to the order,
dated 12.05.2010 made in Pa.Mu.No.55871/N4/08 on the file of
Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Chennai modifying the order, dated 23.09.2008 made in
Ce.P.No.2337/08 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tiruchirapalli and set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Natraj
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the purchaser of a property
challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act.
2. The appellant herein had purchased 2.81 acres out of 7.53 acres
in Survey No.230/2 in Kannudayanpatti Village, Manaparai Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
Manapparai Sub Registration District, Tiruchirapalli Registration District
on 28.05.2008. As per the said document, he had valued the property at
Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. However, the guideline value at the relevant point
of time was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The Sub Registrar not been satisfied
with the valuation of the property, had referred the same under Section
47-A to Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tiruchirapalli. After
conducting an enquiry, he arrived at a finding that the value of the
property is Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.
3. Aggrieved over the order of the original authority, the appellant
herein had filed an appeal before the 1st respondent herein. The 1st
respondent had relied upon two documents to arrive at a finding that the
value of the property would be Rs.40/- per square feet. The said order is
under challenge in the present appeal.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
Document No.4000/07 was registered at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per
acre only for the purpose of getting a bank loan. Another document in
Document No.1311/2008 is for a very small extent of 2 cents which was
purchased for putting up construction. Therefore, the value was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
mentioned at Rs.70/- per square feet. In view of the above said facts,
these two documents ought not to have been relied upon by the appellate
authority to arrive at finding. He further contended that the appellate
authority has fixed the value at Rs.40/- per square feet only on the
ground that there is a possibility of converting the same into a house site
in future.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had also relied
upon a judgment of Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2015
SCC Online Madras 13855 (Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Vs.
Thajunnisa & Others) to contend that the authorities have to decide the
value of the land on the date of registration of the document and cannot
presume and assume the value of the land that would increase in future.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon
document in Document No.4711/2008. Under the said document, the
same appellant had purchased an additional extent in the same survey
number on 10.12.2008 valuing at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. The said
document was also subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A and
ultimately, the authorities fixed the market value at Rs.5,00,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
acre. The purchaser has accepted the said valuation, paid the stamp duty
and the document has been released on 23.04.2010. Therefore, according
to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, when the value of the
land has been accepted to be Rs.5,00,000/- per acre by the authorities,
even after the proceedings under Section 47-A for the same sub division,
it should be followed in the present case also.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate had contended
that the authorities under the Stamp Act have relied upon two documents,
namely Document Nos. 4006/2007 and 1311/2008 to arrive at a finding
that these lands having potential to be converted into a house site in
future and has rightly fixed the value of the property at Rs.40/- per
square feet. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the 1st
respondent in the appeal.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that when the appellant purchased the
property on 28.05.2008, the guideline value for Survey No.230/2 was at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. However, as per the document, the purchaser had
valued the said property at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. This has resulted in
referring the document under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for
adjudication of stamp duty.
10. The original as well as the appellate authority have relied upon
certain documents to arrive at a finding that the value of the property
would be Rs.40/- per square feet. However, it is brought to the notice of
the Court that the same appellant had purchased an additional extent of
land in the same sub division 7 months after the disputed document. This
said document in Document No.4711/2008 was also subjected to
proceedings under Section 47-A. Ultimately, the authorities have decided
that the market value of the property would be Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.
Therefore, this Court finds that the value of the property is Rs.5,00,000/-
per acre and the authorities have erroneously relied upon the two
documents in Document No.4006/2007 and 1311/2008. In those two
documents, one is a higher valued document and the other one is meant
for a house site having an extent of 2 cents. Therefore, the authorities
have relied upon two documents which are not in anyway comparable
with the disputed sale deed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
11. In view of the above said deliberations, the order of the
original authority as well as the appellate authority are hereby set aside
and the appeal stands allowed. The market value to the land in dispute
that was purchased by the appellant under the sale deed, dated
28.05.2008 is hereby fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The respondents are
directed to fix the stamp duty for the said valuation.
12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent as
stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
20.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration cum
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Santhome,
Chennai-600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manapparai,
Tiruchirapalli District.
4.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.1051 of 2010
20.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
