Madras High Court
Ramkumar Giri vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 23 July, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 249 (MAD.), 2010 AIHC (NOC) 387 (MAD.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:23.07.2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM
C.M.A.No.972 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Ramkumar Giri ...Appellant
Versus
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
cum Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore 641 018.
3. Joint Sub-Registrar I,
District Registrar Office,
Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore 641 018.
4. District Registrar Administration,
Collectorate Campus,
Coimbatore 641 018. ..Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 10.12.2008 made in Pa.Mu.En.17625/N2/06 on the file of the 1st respondent, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Rajagopalan
Sr.Advocate for M/s.Arulselvam Associates
For Respondents: Mr.Bhavani Subbarayan
****
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration in Pa.Mu.En.17625/EN2/2006 dated 10.12.2008.
2. The appellant herein purchased a property which was sold in Open Public Auction in pursuance of the order dated 12.04.2000 made in W.P.No.12437 of 1997 by the Honourable Madras High Court. The appellant herein was the highest bidder of the property and the auction was confirmed by the Honourable Madras High Court by its order dated 30.11.2000 in the above said writ petition. The Honourable High Court confirmed the sale and opined that the highest bid of Rs.1,33,10,000/- as the fair price of the property. The sale deed was also executed by the administrator Mr.C.Venkataraman appointed by the Honourable Madras High Court for M/s.Maxima Investments and Finance and its group of companies in favour of the appellant Mr.Ramkumar Giri. On 25.05.2001, the sale deed was executed for a sum of Rs.1,33,10,000/- and the market value of the sale deed was shown as Rs.1,33,10,000/-. At the time of registration, the Registering Officer raised doubts regarding the valuation of the property made in the document and so, he referred the document under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act to the Deputy Collector (Stamps) for adjudication. The Deputy Collector (Stamps) Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore initiated action and passed an order on 04.02.2006 fixing the market value of the said property as Rs.2,46,33,120/- and thereby also fixing the stamp duty as Rs.32,02,312/-. As already stamp duty of Rs.17,30,300/- was paid, a demand was made for the remaining amount of Rs.14,72,012/-.
3. Agreed by the said order of the Deputy Collector (Stamps), an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the appeal of the appellant and passed an order observing that fixing the market value of the property as Rs.1,620.60/- per sqft. and on that basis directed the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Agreed by the other order, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.
4. The learned senior counsel Mr.G.Rajagopalan appearing for the appellant submitted that the property was purchased in open auction sale. As per the order of the Honourable High Court, the property was sold in the Open Public Auction and the appellant was the highest bidder and the auction was confirmed by the High Court and there is no fraudulent attempt on the part of the appellant and the actual bid amount was also shown in this sale deed executed by the administrator of the Honourable High Court and there is no evasion of payment of stamp duty and in such a case the authority has no power to initiate action under Sec 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act 1988.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the authorities have taken into consideration the guideline value alone and without any basis they have decided the value of the property. The learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009 (1) TLT 465 SC (V.N.Devadoss Vs Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors.)
6. The learned Government pleader was also heard. The learned Government pleader submitted that the property is situated in the main place of the Coimbatore. The actual value of the property is higher than the bid amount. The learned Government pleader also submitted that as per the Indian Stamp Act, the stamp duty is to be collected according to the market value of the property.
7. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records.
8. Section 47 A Indian Stamp Act is as follows:
(10) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Authority prescribed under sub-section (5) or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (6) may, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, appeal to the High Court.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Collector of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or the High Court, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement.
9. It is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision cited supra as follows:
10. Market value is a changing concept. The explanation to Sub-Rule (5) makes the position clear that value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by ASG. The view expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, Debenture Holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any under valuation and, therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.
11. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short the 'TP Act'). Although the Act has not included the definition of sale, Section 2(10) of the Act defines conveyance as including a conveyance on sales, every instrument and every decree of final order of any Civil Court by which property whether immovable or moveable or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be.
12. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that Section 47-A has any application because there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any under valuation. That being so, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope for exercising power under Section 47-A of the Act as there is no basis for even entertaining a belief that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty.
10. In this particular case, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had relied only on the guideline value. The guideline value is not the market value. He has not substantiated with any material also in his order for fixing the market value of the property. This Honourable High Court while passing an order in WP No.12437 of 1997 on 30.11.2000 has observed as follows:
3. Taking into consideration of the location of the property, the nature of the property the present trend in the market pendency of earlier litigation, and the representations made by Mr.Madhan, we are of the considered view that the highest bid of Rs.1,33,10,000/- (Rupees one crore, thirty three lakhs and ten thousand only) in the auction sale, is a fair offer and the auction could be confirmed by the Administrator. Mr.Madhan represented that the said bid is fair and there is no chance of getting higher offer. Further, any further delay in the sale will not be in the interest of any one, much less, the depositors.
11. It cannot be said in this case that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision cited above, this Court holds that there is no scope for authorities to exercise power under Section 47 (10) A of the Indian Stamp Act, since there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any under valuation.
12. The order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. There shall be no order to costs.
To
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Deputy Collector (Stamps) Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore 641 018.
3. Joint Sub-Registrar I, District Registrar Office, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore 641 018.
4. District Registrar Administration, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore 641 018