Madras High Court
Kamel B.Sethiya vs The Sub Registrar on 24 August, 2017
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.08.2017
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.A.Nos.198, 199 & 200 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2015
Kamel B.Sethiya .. Appellant in C.M.A.
Nos.198 & 199 of 2015
Mithun B.Sethiya .. Appellant in
C.M.A.No.200 of 2015
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps),
Salem.
3.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-
Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 038. .. Respondents in
all appeals
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.198 and 199 of 2015 filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, to set aside the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in Pa.Mu. No.50909/Oo2/09-2 dated 11.02.2014 modifying the order of the Special Duty Collector (Stamps) Salem in See.Pa.No.3670/08 dated 03.06.2008 and allow the above C.M.A.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.200 of 2015 filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, to set aside the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in Pa.Mu. No.50909/Oo2/09-3 dated 11.02.2014 modifying the order of the Special Duty Collector (Stamps) Salem in See.Pa.No.3671/08 dated 03.06.2008 and allow the above C.M.A.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Karthick, Senior Counsel for in all appeals Mr. V.Nicholas
For respondents : Mr.M.Venugopal,
in all appeals Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these appeals have been filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the orders passed by the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the third respondent, exercising suo motu powers under Section 47-A (6) of the Act. The sale deeds in question are dated 15.04.2008. Form-I notice was issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamps, Salem on 12.05.2008. After conducting an inspection on 29.05.2008, a provisional order came to be passed under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. As per the said order, the value was fixed at Rs.216/- per sq. meter. It is not in dispute that the appellants had accepted the said valuation and paid the deficit stamp duty as well as the registration charges demanded therein. On 25.03.2010, the third respondent issued a notice invoking suo-motu powers seeking an explanation from the appellants as to why the price of the land shall not be fixed at Rs.100/- per sq.ft. The appellants sent a reply to the said notice on 26.05.2010. After enquiry, the third respondent passed an order on 11.02.2014 fixing the price of the land at Rs.50/- per sq.ft equivalent to Rs.538 per sq.m., and demanded deficit stamp duty as well as the registration charges based on the said fixation. Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed.
2. Heard Mr.V.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Nicholas learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) for the respondents.
3. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in order to invoke suo motu power under Sub Section (6) of Section 47-A of the Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has to enter upon a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the orders passed by the second respondent viz., the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem and thereafter, alone he could initiate proceedings under Section 47-A (6) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the judgments of this Court in Rajendran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others ((2012) 3 Law Weekly 606) and M/s Karpagavinayaga Associates Vs. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu- cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai ((2014) 5 Law Weekly 280).
4. Mr.M.Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader(CS) appearing for the respondents, would contend that the subjective satisfaction would relate to loss of revenue, because of the under valuation of the properties, the same would satisfy the requirements of Section 47-A (6) under the same Act. In the order impugned, the third respondent has observed as follows:
nryk; jdpj;Jiz Ml;rpah;(Kj;jpiu) gpu!;jhg Mtz ,lj;jpid g[yj;jzpf;if bra;J r/kP/1f;F U/216-? vd ghh;it (2)?d; go kjpg;g[ eph;zak; bra;J Mizapl;Ls;shh;/ ,e;j kjpg;g[ eph;za eltof;ifapdhy; muRf;F ,Hg;g[ Vw;gl;Ls;sjhf ghh;it (3)?y; fhQqk; khepyf;fzf;fhah; (jzpf;if) mwpf;ifapy;
Fwpg;g[iu bra;ag;gl;L ghh;it (4)?y; fhQqk; fojk; K:yk; gpu!;jhg Mtzj;jpid ,e;jpa Kj;jpiur;rl;lk; gphpt[ 47V(6)?d; fPH; eltof;if;fF cl;gLj;j ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gl;lJ/
5. Pointing out the above, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Kathick, would contend that suo-motu powers have been invoked only on the basis of the audit objections. He would further point out that the District Registrar in the Inspection Report had stated the lands though classified as house sites, there is no possibility of development of the said plots into residential sites and the lands in question are vacant, uneven and surrounded by agricultural lands and hillocks. It is also stated that though certain sale deeds that have been registered showing the value at Rs.100/- per sq.ft., the same has been done by the outsiders for a higher value with a view to borrow more amount by showing these properties as security. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the fixation of the value by the Inspector General of Registration at Rs.50/- per sq.ft. is baseless. Drawing my attention to the Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that none of the requirements under Rule 5 have been followed by the third respondent while arriving at a value of Rs.50/- per sq.ft.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. In Rajendran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others ((2012)-3 Law Weekly 606), this Court has held that the essential requirement for exercising suo-motu power under Section 47-A(6) of the Act is the subjective satisfaction of the authority viz., the third respondent on the basis of the orders passed by the original authority viz., The Deputy Collector stamps. In M/s Karpagavinayaga Associates Vs. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu ((2014) 5 Law Weekly 280), this Court has held that initiation of suo-motu proceedings only based on the audit objection is not a proper exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, this Court has observed as follows:
6. Apart from the above, I find that the Chief Controlling Authority has invoked suo motu proceedings only based on the audit objection. The Chief Controlling Authority can initiate suo motu proceedings by examining the order passed by the original authority under sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act on arriving at a subjective satisfaction. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment of this Court reported in (2012) 4 M.L.J. 704 - Rajendran v. Inspector General of Registration, 11 Chennai 600 028 and others. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai can arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 47 by the original authority is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. But, in the instant case, as observed earlier, suo motu proceedings have been initiated only based on the audit objection. Absolutely, no material is available that the suo motu proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent after arriving at subjective satisfaction that the order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 47 is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since no such subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the first respondent before initiating suo motu proceedings, on this ground also, the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside.
6. In these appeals also a perusal of the order of the third respondent would show that suo-motu proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the audit objections alone and the orders of the original authority were not considered by the Inspector General of Registration. Therefore, the question relating to subjective satisfaction is actually covered by the judgment in M/s Karpagavinayaga Associates case cited supra.
7. Apart from the above, the Inspection Report of the District Registrar would clearly show that the lands in question though classified as house sites cannot be used as housesites as they have been surrounded by lakes, agricultural lands and hillocks. Most of the lands remained vacant with shrubs and bushes.
8. I find force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the third respondent has not adverted to the guidelines enumerated under Rule 5 of the Act for fixation of the valuation. Merely because a few sale deeds have been registered showing a higher value, which even according to the department has been done with a view to borrow more money from the banks, cannot be a basis for fixation of the value under Section 47-A of the Act. In view of the above, all these appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration are set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.08.2017 raa To
1.The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Salem.
3.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-
Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 038.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
raa C.M.A.Nos.198, 199 & 200 of 2015 24.08.2017