M.Kabeer Mohammed vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6951 Mad

    2023/MHC/2793




                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 23.06.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                       C.M.A(MD)No.1142 of 2022
                                                 and
                                       C.M.P(MD)No.11693 of 2022


                     M.Kabeer Mohammed               :Appellant/Second respondent


                                             .vs.


                     1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and
                       The Inspector General of Registration,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Special Duty Collector(Stamps),
                       Tirunelveli.

                     3.The Inspector General of Registration,
                       Chennai-600028.

                     4.The District Registrar,
                       Kanyakumari District.

                     5.The Sub-Registrar-I,
                       Nagercoil,
                       Kanyakumari District.         :Respondents/Respondents


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A(10)
                     of the Indian Stamps Act       against the order   passed by the first
                     respondent in No.33158/E1/2014, dated 27.08.2022.




                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                          For Appellant               :M/s.J.Anandhavalli

                                          For Respondents             :Mr.D.Sasikumar,
                                                                       Addl.Govt.Pleader

                                                       JUDGMENT

*************

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging

the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and

the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28/the first

respondent herein, in a suo-motu proceedings enhancing the

stamp duty of the guideline value.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil

Miscellaneous appeal is as follows:

The appellant has purchased the property in R.S.No.P5/54-1,

Old S.No.2478, measuring an extent of 31 ½ cents(1275.12

sq.mtr), out of a total extent of 1 acre and 62 cents for a total sale

consideration of Rs.15,75,000/-. When the document was presented

for registration, the Sub-Registrar has referred the matter to the

second respondent under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

Pursuant to the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian

Stamp Act, the second respondent by order, dated 13.6.2012, fixed

the market value of the property at Rs.8,075/- per sq.mtr. Pursuant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to the said order, the appellant had paid the differential stamp

duty and the document has been handed over to the appellant. In

the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a notice in the month of

March 2022, calling upon the appellant to appear before him. The

appellant has also sent a reply, dated 7.4.2022. Thereafter, by

order, dated 19.7.2022, the first respondent has fixed the value of

the land at Rs.10,765/- per sq.mtr. Challenging the same, the

present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the

suo-motu enquiry has been initiated only in the year 2019, after a

period of six years, after the passing of the order by the Original

Authority(Stamp Collector) and further, no notice whatsoever was

issued by the first respondent in the suo-motu proceedings, except

one notice, dated 30.3.2022. Therefore her contention is that the

order passed by the authority is not valid in the eye of law,

enhancing the stamp duty. The learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that no notice whatsoever was issued in the suo-motu

proceedings. Further the Original Authority after making proper

inspection, assessed the value of the property and fixed the stamp

duty. Now the order indicates that as if the Inspection was

conducted by the District Registrar at a later point of time. The

first respondent, without following any procedure, has simply

adopted the guideline value. Further, no opportunity whatsoever

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was given in the suo-motu proceedings and there is no proof to

show that notice has been served on the appellant. Hence the

entire order is liable to be set aside.

3.On the contrary, the learned Additional Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the

appellant appeared before the first respondent which makes it

clear that notice has been issued in the suo-motu proceedings

instituted in the year 2015 itself. Therefore, he would submit that

the order passed by the first respondent does not require any

interference by this Court.

4.In the light of the above submissions, now the point that

arose for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as

follows:

1.Whether the suo-motu enquiry has been initiated beyond

the period of six years?

2.If so, whether proper opportunity has been given to the

appellant?

3.Whether the procedure adopted by the first respondent in

fixing the value of the property in question, is correct?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5.As far as the first aspect is concerned, the contention raised

is that a suo-motu enquiry has been initiated beyond the period of

six years, which is barred by limitation. It is relevant to note that

this Court had summoned the entire records from the respondents

and on a perusal of the records, which is intra-departmental in

nature, makes it clear that the suo-motu enquiry has been initiated

in the year 2015 itself. Based on that suo-motu enquiry, spot

inspection has been conducted by the District Registrar. These

facts clearly show that suo-motu enquiry has been initiated within

the time. Though there is no document to show that the value was

fixed, after the appellant has been served with notice and ordered

an opportunity to appear before the first respondent to submit his

objections. The fact remains that on one occasion, the appellant

has also appeared before the first respondent and file his

objections. Therefore the contention that no opportunity was

given in the suo-motu enquiry, cannot be countenanced.

6.Now it has to be seen whether the first respondent

followed the proper procedure in fixing the value of the property.

7.It is seen from the records that the Original Authority fixed

the value of the land in question at Rs.8,025/- per sq mtr. As the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis property was purchased and value below the guideline value, the

matter has been referred to the Stamp Collector under Section 47-

A of the Indian Stamp Act. The Stamp Collector, on perusal of the

document and by making proper inspection in the year 2012,

found that though the land purchased situate in the town, the land

is not developed at the relevant point of time and the said land is

surrounded by Drainage,Sewage water, besides a public toilet is

very much situate near to the land in question. Taking overall

consideration of the ground reality, the Stamp Collector has come

to the conclusion that though the guideline value was fixed at Rs.

10,765/- per sq mtr, fixed the value of the property at Rs.8,075/-

per sq.mtr which has been sought to be reviewed in the suo-motu

enquiry. In the suo-motu enquiry, a report said to have been sought

from the District Registrar. The District Registrar has given his

report as if the surrounding area in the locality developed and

some commercial establishments have come up in the year 2015.

Based on his report, the first respondent has passed the order. It is

relevant to note that the guideline value is normally fixed for the

purpose of collecting the revenue and whether such guideline

value fixed on proper assessment taking note of the value of the

property and nearby place value, there is no evidence whatsoever

available. The guideline value is fixed only for collecting the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis revenue and it will not reflect the correct value of the property.

The market value depend upon the nature of the area and where

the property situates, whether it is surrounded by other buildings,

whether there was any proper development etc. Therefore, merely

on the basis of the guideline value of the property, we cannot come

to the conclusion that it is the definite market value of the

property. Market value has to be assessed taking note of various

factors on ground reality. In some of the area, the guideline value

may be more than the market value. Even the market value is less

than the guideline value. So the market value has to be

determined considering the transaction took place in the nearby

lands or nature of development took place in that locality.

Admittedly, the Original Authority passed an order after making

spot inspection and found that though the said land was in the

centre of the town, there was no development and surrounded by

drainage, sewage and that apart, there was no commercial

buildings at the relevant point of time ie., in the year 2012.

Therefore, it is relevant to note that the market value has to be

assessed as on the date of presentation of the document for

registration. Merely on the basis of some reports, which was after

three years, the market value cannot be assessed. In the

meanwhile, some building come up and that cannot be the criteria

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to determine the market value of the property. It is relevant to note

that while fixing the market value of the property, particularly, in

respect of vacant sites, Prevention of Undervaluation of

Instruments Rules contemplates some methodology in determining

the market value , the other factors which influence the valuation

of the land in question has to be taken into consideration. As far as

the house sites are concerned, the general value of the house sites

in the locality, nearness to roads, railway station, bus route;

nearness to market shops and the like; amenities available in the

place like public Offices, hospitals and educational institutions has

to be taken into consideration while fixing the value. Further the

nature and location of the property to be taken note of and any

other special feature having a bearing on the valuation of the

property has to be taken note of. Therefore, the Original Authority,

during his inspection found that the land was undeveloped one

and the locality was undeveloped one at the relevant point of time.

Further the land in question was surrounded by drainage, sewage

and also there is a public toilet available nearby the land. Taking

note of all the above points on reality, the market value has been

assessed and the Stamp Collector had fixed the value of the land at

Rs.8,075/- per sq.mtr.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8.Such being the position, the market value of the land in

question cannot be assessed only based on the report of the District

Registrar, who is none other than the sub-ordinate officer of the

respondents. The value of the land in question cannot be enhanced

automatically without conducting any inspection and considering

the modalities as required under Rule 5 of the Prevention of

Undervaluation of Instrument Rules. Therefore the report of the

District Registrar of the year 2015 has been given much

importance by the first respondent and it is only made for the

purpose of collecting the revenue. No such enquiry was conducted

as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Undervaluation

of Instrument Rules. In such view of the matter, the order of the

revisional authority cannot be sustained and the same has

necessarily to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside

and the order of the Original Authority is confirmed.

9.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

23.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No

vsn

To

1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.1142 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.11693 of 2022

23.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis