Madras High Court
M.Pethuraj vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ on 11 November, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.395 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 29.09.2024
Pronounced on 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.395 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.3505 of 2022
M.Pethuraj
S/o.Muthukutty ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/
Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Palayankottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47A(10) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to set aside the order passed in Na.Ka.No.
18584/N4/2021 dated 21.01.2022 on the file of the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajasekar
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.395 of 2022
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,
Government Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the order of the first
respondent dated 21.01.2022 passed in Na.Ka.No.18584/N4/2021.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
(a) The appellant purchased the lands comprised in
S.Nos.885/1, 885/2, 885/3, and 885/4 in Sathiram
Puthukulam Village, within the jurisdiction of the
Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirunelveli Registration District -
I, Tirunelveli.
(b) The sale consideration reflected in the document is
Rs.4,91,000/- for the total extent of 5 Acres and 53
Cents.
(c) Admittedly, the guideline value for the above lands
was Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr., which is approximately
Rs.38,437/- per Cent (Rs.950 x 40.46 Sq.Mtrs.) and
Rs.38,43,700/- per Acre (Rs.38,437 x 100 Cents).
Thus, the guideline value for the total extent of 5
Acres and 53 Cents was Rs.2,12,55,661/-.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(d) Since the appellant did not pay the stamp duty in
accordance with the guideline value, the Sub
Registrar referred to the Special Deputy Collector
(Stamps), the second respondent herein, under Section
47A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for
determination of the market value.
(e) The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), the second
respondent, determined the value at Rs.950/- per
Sq.Mtr.
(f) The appellant filed an appeal before the first
respondent.
(g) The first respondent sought for a report from the
District Registrar (Admin.), Thirunelveli, who, after
considering the location of the lands, had
recommended the value of the lands as Rs.650/- per
Sq.Mtr.
(h) However, the first respondent confirmed the order
passed by the second respondent and fixed the value
at Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr.
(i) The appellant aggrieved, by the said order, has
preferred the instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
respondents had fixed an unreasonable value, and it cannot be the market
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
value for the lands since the lands were agricultural punja lands, and the
stamp duty ought to have been fixed by considering the said fact. The
learned counsel further submitted that the appellant had produced
evidence before the respondents to establish that the lands were
agricultural punja lands and hence prayed for setting aside the order of the
first respondent.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submitted that the guideline value of the lands was Rs.950/-
per Sq.Mtr. at the relevant point of time, and the lands were classified as
residential areas; that the respondents had considered all the above facts
and fixed the value; and that since the appellant had not established that
the lands were agricultural punja lands, the order passed by the
respondents cannot be assailed and therefore prayed for dismissal of this
appeal.
5. The only point for consideration is whether the market value
fixed by the first respondent is correct, and if not, what would be the
correct value.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The lands were comprised in S.Nos.885/1, 885/2, 885/3, and
885/4 measuring a total extent of 5 Acres and 53 Cents. The value shown
in the document was Rs.4,91,000/-. As per the guideline value, the value
of the total extent would be Rs.2,12,55,661/- [wrongly referred to as
Rs.2,12,21,528/- in the order of the second respondent]. The second
respondent had found that the lands are part of the residential areas, and
hence, the guideline value reflects the correct market value and fixed the
value at Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr.
7. In the appeal filed by the appellant before the first respondent,
the first respondent sought for a report from the District Registrar,
Tirunelveli. The District Registrar, on inspection, found that the lands
were divided into plots; however, there were no basic facilities such as
drinking water and electricity connections and that the lands were
surrounded by S.Nos.863/1 and 870/1, which were sold for Rs.950/- per
Sq.Mtr.; and that since the subject lands were situated around 2 kilometers
away from the said lands, the very same value of Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr.
cannot be adopted and therefore, the District Registrar recommended that
Rs.650/- per Sq.Mtr. may be fixed. The first respondent, however, did not
accept the recommendation made by the District Registrar, Tirunelveli,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
since there were transactions in the lands comprised in S.Nos.884, 871,
870, 870/1 & 863, which were situated near the lands in question, and the
value shown in those transactions was Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr. The first
respondent therefore rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
8. However, this Court finds that the District Registrar, while
recommending the value to be fixed at 650/- per Sq.Mtr., has taken into
consideration the fact that the lands in question were located in an interior
place and were situated 1 to 2 kilometers away from the properties, which
were sold for Rs.950/- per Sq.Mtr. The respondents were unable to point
out any infirmity in the value recommended by the District Registrar,
Tirunelveli, and the reason given by him for recommending such a value
to be fixed.
9. The appellant was unable to produce any documents or evidence
to fix a lesser market value than the one recommended by the District
Registrar, Tirunelveli. Though the appellant claims that the lands are
agricultural punja lands, there is evidence to show that the lands were
surrounded by lands where there are residential plots. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to fix the market
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
value at Rs.650/- per Sq.Mtr. for the lands in question, and the stamp duty
may be accordingly collected from the appellant.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.11.2024
(1/2)
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/
Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Palayankottai,
Tirunelveli District..
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
Pre-Delivery Judgment made
in
and
11.11.2024
(1/2)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
