Madras High Court
K.Natarajan vs The Chief Revenue Control Officer/ on 28 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A No.2659 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A. No.2659 of 2023 and
C.M.P. Nos.24659 and 24660 of 2023
K.Natarajan ...
Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chief Revenue Control Officer/
Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai - 600 028
2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamp)
Collector Office Campus
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore
3.The Special Tahsildar (Stamp)
Tahsildar Office, Dharapuram
Tiruppur District
4.The Sub Registrar
Vellakovil Sub Registrar Office
Vellakovil
Tiruppur District ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.M.A No.2659 of 2023
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47A(10) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to set aside the order passed by the 1st
respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No.40556/N2/2022 dated
08.09.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.R.Gokul Krishnan,
Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred challenging the order of the Inspector General of
Registration dated 08.09.2023 wherein he had confirmed the proceedings
of the Special Tahsildar (Stamps) dated 25.08.2022 by which the second
mentioned authority had made a demand for Rs.23,31,015/-, which
comprised the deficit stamp duty of Rs.23,07,176/- and the interest
thereon. The brief facts are as below:
● On 19.09.2020, the appellant herein had purchased a block of land
measuring about 3.66 acres in S. No.251/4 of Velampalayam
village, Kangayam Taluk, Tirupur District along with a building,
which is valued at Rs.98,50,000/-. The document was registered as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Document No.4667/2020 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vellakoil
Sub Registrar Office. For the purpose of stamp duty, the appellant
valued the land at Rs.54,11,115/- and the building at
Rs.44,38,885/-.
● This document was taken up for scrutiny under Section 47A of the
Stamp Act. On 13.08.2021, the appellant was served with 'Form 1'
notice informing him that there is a deficit stamp duty of
Rs.23,07,176/-. The appellant had sent his reply dated 16.09.2021
indicating therein that he is willing to produce such material as
may be necessary to defend his valuation. This has to be now
followed by a notice under Form 2, but in the instant case, the
appellant had only received the final order of the Special Tahsildar
(Stamps) dated 25.08.2022. According to the appellant, 'Form 2'
notice was enclosed only with this final proceedings.
● The appellant had submitted his detailed response to the same, but
it has zero value, since this reply ought to have been given for
'Form 2' notice and not for the final decision of the Special
Tahsildar (Stamps). Neither 'Form 2' notice which is enclosed to
the final proceedings dated 25.08.2022 nor the said proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
itself does not make any statement justifying the levy of
Rs.23,07,176/- as defaulted sum of stamp duty.
● Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein had preferred an
appeal before the first respondent, namely the Chief Revenue
Control Officer/Inspector General of Registration. The appeal was
disposed of by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated
08.09.2023. It is in this proceedings, the appellant was informed
that the authorities had no issues with the valuation of the land, but
only with regard to the valuation of the building they had issues.
According to them, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD,
Madurai had inspected the building and had valued the building at
Rs.3,74,05,662/-. This proceedings is now under challenge.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
(a) There is breach of procedure at the first instance by the Special
Tahsildar (Stamps) where he did not follow his Form 1 notice
dated 13.08.2021 with Form 2 notice and that the same is enclosed
in the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, which ought
to have been disclosed in Form 2 notice. If only it was served duly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with all material particulars, then the appellant would have had an
opportunity of defending the same. This was defeated by (i) non
service of Form 2 notice and (ii) even what was served
subsequently did not disclose the material particulars necessary for
defending the claim.
(b) the final order of the Special Tahsildar (Stamps) is devoid of any
disclosure of any facts justifying the demand for the alleged deficit
stamp duty of Rs.23,07,176/-;
(c) The impugned proceedings discloses certain report of the Assistant
Executive Engineer regarding the valuation of the property. But
neither his visit was notified to the appellant nor a copy of his
report was ever served on him. There is total breach of doctrine of
audi alteram partem.
(d) Today, the appellant has demolished the entire building, as it was
too old and too dangerous for human inhabitation. If only the
appellant were duly informed about an intended enquiry by proper
service of Form 2 notice accompanied by the engineer's report, the
appellant would have at least preserved the building but with a
determined silence, the Special Tahsildar (Stamps) has given an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impression to the appellant that the entire episode demanding
deficit stamp duty is closed.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, produced the entire file
for the perusal of this court.
4. This court finds that the official file does not contain either Form 1 or
Form 2 notice much less the date on which Form 2 notice was served on
the appellant. With no material in the official file to indicate that Form 2
notice was served not simultaneously with the final order but well before
the passing of the final order by the Special Tahsildar (Stamps), it has to
be held that the appellant was not duly served with Form 2 Notice. This is
the first leg of breach of principles of natural justice, which the statute is
anxious to extend to the one who is facing liability under an Act.
5. The second point in favour of the appellant is about the alleged
inspection report of the Assistant Executive Engineer valuing the
property. Admittedly, it is the building and no authority is entitled to
barge into any property without a notice to its owner, unless there is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
apprehension or suspicion about the commission of a cognizable offence.
The official records does not disclose that the engineer had ever issued
any notice of his visit to the appellant before he inspected the building in
question.
6. The next point in favour of the appellant is that, even this report of the
Assistant Executive Engineer dated 19.04.2021 addressed to the Sub
Registrar, Vellakoil, was not served on the appellant.
7. With breach of statutory provision at every level with gross violation of
the principles of natural justice, which is demonstrably evident, this court
has no little hesitation, but to set aside the impugned order of the first
respondent dated 08.09.2023. In normal circumstances, this court would
have remanded the matter back to the Special Tahsildar (Stamps) for a de
novo enquiry, but even this option is not available with the court, since
the building has already been demolished. If the statement of the engineer
is true and justifiable, then it is the laxity of the authorities, they had
denied the State of its just revenue. The appellant can never be blamed
and the fault is entirely on the authorities not communicating to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant the materials it intended to use against him.
8. In conclusion, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The impugned
proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na. Ka. No.40556/N2/2022 dated
08.09.2023, is set aside. The fourth respondent, namely the Sub
Registrar, Vellakovil Sub Registrar Office, is required to release the
document registered as Document No.4667 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020
forthwith to the appellant. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.11.2023
Asr
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Revenue Control Officer/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai - 600 028
2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamp)
Collector Office Campus
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore
3.The Special Tahsildar (Stamp)
Tahsildar Office, Dharapuram
Tiruppur District
4.The Sub Registrar
Vellakovil Sub Registrar Office
Vellakovil
Tiruppur District
5.The Government Pleader
High Court, Madras
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Asr
C.M.A. No.2659 of 2023 and
C.M.P. Nos.24659 & 24660 of 2023
Dated : 28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
