Madras High Court
S.Balakrishnan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 26 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.4186 & 4187 of 2018 and 9215 of 2019
S.Balakrishnan ... Appellant/ Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Watrap. ... Respondents/ Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 A(10)
of Indian Stamp Act, to allow the C.M.A with cost by setting aside the
order, dated 13.10.2017 in Na.Ka.No.15921/N4/N3/2015 passed by the
1st respondent by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in T.P.No.
494/2014, dated 09.02.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Natraj
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the purchaser of a property
challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent herein, wherein he has
fixed the value of one acre of land at Rs.3,00,000/-.
2. The appellant herein had purchased 17.49 acres in Survey Nos.
892/1B, 893/1D, 889/1B, 889/1A, 889/1C, 892/7, 892/3B by way of
registered sale deed in Document No.687/2013 on 06.05.2013 in
V.Pudupatti village, Watrap Sub Registrar office and Virudhunagar Sub
Registration district. At the time of registration of the document, the
value of the property was shown as Rs.32,14,000/- and he had paid a
stamp duty of Rs.2,25,000/-. After registering the document, the Sub
Registrar had referred the document under Section 47-A to the 2 nd
respondent herein. The 2nd respondent after hearing the appellant herein,
had passed an order on 20.12.2004 fixing the market value of the
property at Rs.6,92,000/- per hectare and thereafter, proceeded to hold
that the purchaser has to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.1,25,750/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
As per the said order, the market value of 1 acre was fixed at
Rs.2,80,000/-.
3. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein had filed an
appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has not only
confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent but has suo moto
enhanced the value of the land to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. This order is
under challenge in the present appeal.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
during the proceedings under Section 47-A, he has raised various
grounds citing the relevant rules. However, those grounds were not
considered by the original authority, namely the Special Deputy
Collector (Stamps) and he has proceeded to pass an order fixing the
market value of the land at Rs.2,80,000/- per acre. When he filed an
appeal before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has chosen to value it
at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, according to the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, in the appeal filed by the purchaser, the 1st
respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever to increase the value of the
land. Either he can confirm the order of the original authority or reduce
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
the market value fixed by the original authority. In case, if he exercises
his suo moto powers, a notice should have been issued to the purchaser
indicating the fact that the 1st respondent in going to invoke his suo moto
powers. Further, he had contended that when none of the grounds raised
by him were considered by the original authority, the first appellate
authority at least should have considered those grounds and should have
arrived at the value of the land at Rs.1,77,475/- based upon the grounds
raised by him. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by
the 1st respondent and to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
had contended that the guideline value on the date of registration of the
document was at Rs.3,55,000/- per acre. Therefore, the order passed by
the 1st respondent herein fixing the value of the land at Rs.3,00,000/- per
acre cannot be considered to be excessive or in any way against the
statutory provisions. Hence, he prayed for confirming the order passed
by the first appellate authority and to direct the appellant to pay the
deficit stamp duty.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
7. A perusal of the appeal grounds filed before the 1 st respondent
on 07.04.2015 indicates that the appellant/purchaser has raised several
legal issues relating to the fixation of the market value of the property. A
perusal of the order passed by the 1st respondent does not disclose
consideration of any one of these grounds raised by the purchaser. That
apart, the first appellate authority has not only confirmed the order
passed by the 2nd respondent, but he has also proceeded to enhance the
value from Rs.2,80,162/- to Rs.3,00,000/-.
8. This Court is of the view that the order of the original authority
has been passed on 20.12.2004. Without issuing any notice, the first
appellate authority will not have any jurisdiction to invoke the suo moto
powers. That apart, the suo moto powers can be invoked by the appellate
authority only within a period of 5 years from the date of passing of
order by the first appellate authority. Now, the said 5 years period has
elapsed. Therefore, the first appellate authority will not have any
jurisdiction to invoke the suo moto powers hereafter. Considering the
fact that the appellate authority has not considered any one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
grounds raised by the appellants in the grounds of appeal, this Court is of
the view that the order has been passed clearly in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the 1st respondent in
the appeal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of
the 1st respondent herein for considering the matter afresh on merits and
in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the said observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
26.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
3.The Sub Registrar,
Watrap.
4.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
