Madras High Court
Kannan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 16 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.207 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD).No.207 of 2010
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
1.Kannan
2.Durairaj ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
and Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tirunelveli ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47-A(10)
of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 9(5)(a) of Tamil Nadu Stamp
(Prevention under Valuation of Instruments) Rules 1968 to set-aside the
order of the 1st respondent through his proceedings in No.63024/No.5/06
dated 23.05.2009 served on 08.10.2009.
For Appellants : Mr.J.David Ganesan
for M/s. P.Jeyapaul Associates
For Respondents : Mr.V.Omprakash
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.207 of 2010
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed challenging the order of the first
respondent fixing the market value of the property at Rs.120/- per sq.ft
on the appeal filed by the appellants.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The appellants purchased the property measuring an extent of 42
cents in T.S.No.1611/01, Ward 11, Block 2, Sindhupoonthurai Village,
Tirunelveli, by sale deed 15.09.2004. The value shown in the document
is Rs.1,26,000/-. The document was referred under Section 47(A) of the
Indian Stamp Act to the second respondent herein for fixing the market
value. The second respondent fixed the market value at Rs.80,000/- per
cent. The appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent and
the first respondent had fixed the value at Rs.120 per sq ft based on the
report of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. Aggrieved by the
order of the first respondent, the appellants have preferred the instant
appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the land is abutted by the Thamirabarani River and a burial ground and
the land is an agricultural land; that therefore, the value fixed on sq. ft
basis is excessive and submitted that the value quoted by them in the sale
deed is the correct market value and prayed for setting aside the order of
the first respondent.
4. The learned Government Advocate per contra submitted that
though the Special Deputy Collector had fixed the market value at
Rs.80,000/- per cent, the first respondent had reduced the value
considering the location of the land and other factors. Therefore, there is
no infirmity in the impugned order. He would further submit that the
guideline value at the relevant point of time for the survey number in
which the property is situated was Rs.224/- sq ft.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the value fixed by the first respondent is the actual market value.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Admittedly, the guideline value of the property at the relevant
point of time was Rs.224 per sq ft. It is also admitted that there were no
sales made after 2004 for comparison and for arriving at the exact
market value. The value shown by the appellant at Rs.1,26,000/- for 42
cents is also very low as compared to the guideline value. The value per
cent according to the appellant was around Rs.3000/-. Approximately the
value per sq. ft is Rs.6.88/-, whereas the respondents fixed the value of
Rs.120/- per sq.ft. based on the report of the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration.
8. The report of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration also
does not indicate how he arrived at the said value of Rs.120/-. It is also
admitted by the first respondent in the impugned order that the land in
question is abutted by the Thamirabarani River and a burial ground and
that the area is under developed. In such circumstances, it is not known
as to how the first respondent fixed the value at Rs.120/- per sq. ft.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in order to determine
the correct market value,it would be in the interest of justice to remand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matter to the second respondent to arrive at the correct market value
by following the principles for determination of market value provided
in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules 1968. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to assess the
market value in terms of Rule 5 of the abovesaid Rules after giving
opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case.
10. In fine, this appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To,
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
and Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Tirunelveli
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
16.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
