Madras High Court
Thiru. Vasu vs The Tamil Nadu Principal on 15 September, 2023
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2023
and C.M.P. Nos.14149 and 14156 of 2023
1.Thiru. Vasu ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.1423/2023
2.M/s. JSR Infra Developers Pvt Ltd,
Rep by its Authorized signatory Mr. Karthikeyan,
having registered Office at 4th Floor,
JSR Castle, No.17, Vijayaraghava Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.1424/2023
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Principal
Revenue Control Officer Authority & Inspector General of
Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Special Deputy Collector, (Stamps),
Sathuvachari, Vellore District, Vellore – 632 009.
3.The Sub Registrar,
No.46, Vellore Road, Tharapadavedu Village,
Katpadi- 632 007. ......Respondents in both C.M.As
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47
(A)(10) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, prays to set aside the impugned order
dated 25.04.2023 passed by the 1st respondent in proceeding
No.18756/U1/2022 on the file of the 1st Respondent.
For Appellant in C.M.A.No.1423/2023 : Mr.A.R.Lakshmi Narayanan
For Appellant in C.M.A.No.1424/2023 : Mr.Vaibhav R Venkatesh
For Respondents in both C.M.As : Mr.R. Ramanlal,
Additional Advocate General-IV
Assisted by Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The above appeals have been preferred challenging the orders passed
under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals by the appellants are as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
a) on 28.05.2014, a company by name North Arcot District Timber Ex
Service Man Co-operative Timber and Blocksmith Workers and Services
limited desirous of selling a property sent a letter to the Tahsildar to fix the
value of the land in Survey Nos.664/2B and 665/5 in Katpadi Taluk, Vellore
District which was sought to be sold on 29.05.2014. The Tahsildar fixed the
value of the land at Rs.1040 per sq.foot.
b) on 30.10.2014, the aforesaid company gave an advertisement to sell
two acres of land in above mentioned Survey Nos by public auction on
27.11.2014. The appellant in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023 was the highest bidder
and sought to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.1065 per sq.ft.
The total sale consideration for the land measuring 87,120 sq.ft. was
Rs.9,27,82,800/-.The company had executed a sale deed on 27.11.2014 vide
document No.10164/2014 registered on the file of SRO, Katpadi. The Sub-
Registrar, Katpadi referred the matter to District Collector under Section 47
A(1) of Indian Stamp Act. On 15.04.2015, the District Collector fixed the
value as Rs.1065 per sq.ft which is the value mentioned in the document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
c) On 09.09.2015, the appellant in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023 sold the
property to the appellant in C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023. The value of the
property in the said sale deed was shown as Rs.1067 per sq.ft. On 22.09.2015,
the Special Deputy Tahsildar fixed the market rate as Rs.1200/- per sq.ft.
Though the said order was not passed under reference, the appellant in
C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023 paid the stamp duty as per the value determined by
the Special Deputy Tahsildar.
d) On 16.08.2022, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings suo motu
under Section 47 A(6) of the Stamp Act and sought to fix the value of the
property at Rs.2000/- per sq.ft in respect of both the sales. Thereafter, on
25.04.2023, the appellants objected to the said suo motu proceedings and sent
their explanation on 12.09.2022.
e) On 25.04.2023, the 1st respondent not satisfied with the reply given
by the appellants passed orders determining the value of the property at
Rs.2000/- per sq.ft and directed the appellants to pay difference in the stamp
duty. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the above appeals have been
preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of the
sale deed which is the subject matter in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023, the
impugned order was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 47
A(6) of the Stamp Act; that the District Collector had passed the order on
15.04.2015; and that the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order on
25.04.2023. As regards the sale deed which is the subject matter in
C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
besides the fact that the said order is beyond the period of five years from the
date of sale, the power of revision can be exercised only if an order is passed
by the Collector and that since no order was passed by the Collector, the 1 st
respondent has no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 47 A(6) of the
Stamp Act. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the two
impugned orders.
4. Mr.R.Raman Lal, learned Additional Advocate General-IV assisted
by Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted
that the property was under valued in the document. Since there was a doubt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
in the valuation and there were complaints by certain third parties, the
Department had referred the documents to the Vigilance Commission. The
Vigilance Commission had also initiated criminal proceedings and a FIR in
crime No.11 of 2018 was registered against the appellants. Thereafter, though
the FIR was closed, it was found by the Department that the value at the
relevant point of time was Rs.2000/- per sq.ft and therefore, submitted that
there is no infirmity in the order passed by the 1st respondent.
5. The admitted facts are that the property for which the stamp duty
sought to be levied was sold in the year 2014 in favour of the appellant in
C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023. Thereafter, the appellant in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023
sold it to the appellant in C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023. The District Collector had
determined the value of the land as Rs.1065/- per Sq.foot on 15.04.2015 on
the reference made by the Sub-Registrar in respect of the document in favour
of the appellant in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023. The 1st respondent had initiated
suo motu proceedings on 16.08.2022 under Section 47 A(6) of the Stamp Act.
In respect of the sale deed dated 09.09.2015 which is the subject matter in
C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023, the Special Deputy Tahsildar fixed the value as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
Rs.1200/- per sq.ft and stamp duty was paid by the appellant accordingly.
There was no order passed by the Collector.
6. It would be useful to refer to Sections 47 A(6)and 47 A(7) of the
Stamp Act which reads as follows:-
“Section 47-A(6):The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority may, suo motu, call for and examine an order
passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and if
such order is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he
may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made
and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may initiate
proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order and
may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.
Section 47-A(7): The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority shall not initiate proceedings against any order
passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section(3) if,
(a) the time for appeal against that order has not
expired; or
(b) more than five years have expired after the
passing of such order”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
7. As stated earlier by the impugned order in C.M.A.No.1423 of 2023,
the first respondent by the order dated 16.08.2022 seeks to modify the order
of the Collector which was passed on 15.04.2015. Likewise, for the sale deed
executed on 09.09.2015, the first respondent passed the impugned order in
C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023. The actions have been taken beyond the period of
five years and hence, the same is unsustainable in view of the clear mandate
of the statute. This position has been reiterated in several decisions of this
Court. Therefore, merely because the respondents had been contemplating
action internally, the limitation provided under the Statute cannot be ignored.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders, pursuant to an
action taken beyond the period of five years from the order of Collector and
from the date of sale deed cannot be sustained. That apart, this Court finds
that the order which is impugned in C.M.A.No.1424 of 2023 is liable to be
set aside for yet another reason. There is no order passed by the Deputy
Collector which would empower the 1st respondent to review. Therefore, for
the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.09.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
nr
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Principal
Revenue Control Officer Authority & Inspector General of
Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Special Deputy Collector, (Stamps),
Sathuvachari, Vellore District, Vellore – 632 009.
3.The Sub Registrar,
No.46, Vellore Road, Tharapadavedu Village,
Katpadi- 632 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.1423 & 1424 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
nr
C.M.A.Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2023
and C.M.P. Nos.14149 and 14156 of 2023
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
