Madras High Court
E.Jayabarathi vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 5 December, 2014
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:5.12.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN CMA.Nos.2559 and 2560 of 2006 E.Jayabarathi ... Appellant in CMA.No.2559 of 2006 Easwaramurthi ... Appellant in CMA.No.2560 of 2006 -Versus- 1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Santhome Chennai-600 028. 2.The District Revenue (Stamps) District Collectorate Office Coimbatore-641 018. 3.The Sub Registrar Pollachi Registration Office Pollachi Coimbatore District. ... Respondents in both appeals These civil Miscellaneous appeals are filed under Section 47A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 against the order passed by the Ist respondent in and by his Order No.1858/U1/2006-1 dated 03.05.2006. For Appellant : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents :Mrs.Jayasree Government Advocate C O M M O N J U D G E M E N T The appeals have been preferred by the purchasers against the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, fixing the market value at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre by enhancing the market value fixed by the DRO at Rs.9,75,000/- in respect of the property comprised in T.S.No.252/3. The appellants purchased the property by virtue of sale deeds dated 16.2.2004 and paid stamp duty for the market value of three lakhs per acre. However, the matter was referred to under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the DRO redetermined the market value of the agricultural land at Rs.9,75,000/- per acre. After one year, suo motu revision proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent under Section 47-A (6) of the Act and enhanced the value to Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, observing that the said agricultural land would become housing plots in future, as the neighboring land was already made as housing plots. The said order is being challenged by the purchasers. 2. Heard Mr.V.Bharathidasan learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs.Jayasree, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Mr.V.Bharathidasan. learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that future stamp duty for conveyance cannot be collected and to re-fix the market value of the land, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttrapradesh and others vs. Ambrish Tandan & another reported in 2012 (1) CTC 556 and Thayunissa and another vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),Chennai Collectorate and two others others reported in 2013 (5) CTC 577 and M/s.Karpagavinayaga Associates vs. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2014-5-L.W.280. However, Mrs.Jayasree, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that a neighboring land was converted into housing plots and therefore, the aforesaid land has got potential to be converted as housing plots. Therefore, the first respondent rightly initiated suo motu proceedings and rightly refixed the market value of the land. 3. Though the appellants paid stamp duty for the value of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, the matter was referred to under Section 47-A(6)of the Act. The DRO after taking into consideration of availability of water facilities, use of electricity for irrigation and standing crops in the property, came to the conclusion that it is only an agricultural land. Though near by land was converted as housing plots and stamp duty was also paid by the appellants, after one year, suo motu revision under Section 47-A (6) was initiated by the first respondent. The reasoning given by the first respondent to refix the market value at Rs.15,00,000/- was that, as per District Registrar's report, the nearby land was converted as housing plots in OM Santhi Nagar and on enquiry from one Aruchamy, he came to conclusion that the property has got potential value and that would become housing plots and the market value of the land at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre was refixed. The finding given by the DRO that the aforesaid land is being used for agricultural purpose having irrigation by using electrical pump set and there was standing crops, was not taken into consideration by the first respondent. There was no prima facie material to come to the conclusion that the market value is Rs.15,00,000/- per acre except the finding that the said land would become housing plots in future, as there is a housing colony near by land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & others vs. Ambrish Tandon and another reported in 2012 (1) CTC 556 categorically held that merely because, the property would be used for commercial purpose, at the later point of time, it may not be the relevant material for assessing the value for the purpose of Stamp Duty. Stamp duty to be paid on the value is relatable to the date of purchase. The nature of use is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. Paragraph 8 of the judgement is usefully extracted as follows: 8. We have already held that it is the grievance of the Respondents tht the orders were passed by the Additional Collector on a public holiday. Regarding the merits though the Collector, Lucknow made a surprise site inspection, there is no record to show that all the details such as measurement, extend, boundaries were noted in the presence of the respondents who purchased the property. It is also explained that the plot in question is not a corner plot as stated in the impugned order as boundaries of the plot mentioned in the freehold deed executed by Nozool Officer and in the sale deed dated 16.4.2003 only on one side there is a road. It is also demonstrated that at the time of execution of the Sale Deed, the house in question was used for residential purpose and it is asserted that the stamp duty was paid based on the position and user of the building on the date of the purchase. The impugned order of the High Court shows that it was not seriously disputed about the nature and user of the building, namely, residential purpose on the date of the purchase. Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. Though the matter could have been considered by the Appellate Authority in view of our reasoning that there was no serious objection and in fact the said alternative remedy was not agitated seriously and in view of the factual details based on which the High Court has quashed the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the Additional District Collector, we are not inclined to interfere at this juncture. 4. From the above, it is clear that what is the nature of use relatable on the date of purchase as per the DRO, the property is only an agricultural land with standing crops having irrigation with electric pump-set. Therefore, as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the value for the purpose of Stamp Duty has got to be decided only as to the nature of the property and the use of the property on the date of purchase. In this case, it is evident from the order of the DRO that the land was used as agricultural purpose. It is also evident that no finding has been given as to how the interest of the revenue has been effected as amended in Section 47-A (6) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899. Therefore, the value fixed by the first respondent for assessing Stamp Duty is set aside and the consequential order passed by the first respondent for payment of stamp duty is also set aside. The order passed by the DRO is restored. The appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2006 are closed. 5.12.2014 Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No vk To 1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Santhome Chennai-600 028. 2.The District Revenue (Stamps) District Collectorate Office Coimbatore-641 018. 3.The Sub Registrar Pollachi Registration Office Pollachi Coimbatore District. N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.
vk C.M.A.Nos.2559 & 2560 of 2006 5.12.2014