Madras High Court
N.Dharmaraj vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 10 September, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
C.M.A.No.1358 of 2006
and
C.M.P.No.5897 of 2006
N.Dharmaraj .. Appellant
vs
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-
cum-Inspector General of Registration,
No.120 Santhom High Road,
Chennai.
2.Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Cuddalore.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Panruti. .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 as awarded by the Indian Stamps Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 9/2001) read with Rule 9(5)(a) The Tamil Nadu Stamp Valuation of Instrument Rules 1968 against the order dated 28.02.2006 passed in Proceedings No.51223/N3/05 on the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai dated 28.02.2006 and received by the Appellant on 13.03.2006 modifying the order in M.R.Si.Pa.299/05-6 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector Stamps, Cuddalore dated 30.06.2005 to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Muralidharan
For Respondents: Mr.M.Venugopal
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Registrar, Panrutti, had issued a form under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act and asked the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.14,216/- as additional stamp duty for registering document No.911 of 2005 dated 25.05.2005, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Panrutti. The said document had been executed by Tarabhai w/o Jayaraman Reddy to and in favour of the appellant herein namely M.Dharmaraj s/o Natarajan. The vendor had sold an extent of 33 cents in Survey No.189/1. The said communication was sent to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore, who in turn, issued an order directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.14,216/- as additional stamp duty or file his explanation, within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of his order.
2.After receipt of this communication, the appellant herein made an appeal to the 1st respondent herein namely Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28, stating that the Sub-Registrar and the Special Deputy Collector had inspected his land on two occasions and they had concluded that the subject land is a cultivable one. Besides the land has been situated at a distance of = km from the residential area. However, the Sub-Registrar had taken the land value as Rs.12/- per sq. ft., which is an erroneous view. After receipt of his appeal, the 1st respondent herein had concluded that the Special Deputy Collector had conducted enquiry and collected statements from the local area and found that the land per acre is valued at Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs, as per market value. Therefore, it was directed to the appellant herein to pay stamp duty, to the subject land, taking land value as Rs.2 lakhs per acre.
3.Aggrieved by the said order passed by the 1st respondent herein, the above appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the authorities have not given any notice to the appellant before inspecting the property as is required under Rule 4(6) of the Prevention of under valuation of Instruments Rules. The authorities have not given any specific finding to the effect that the value given under the Instrument is not a true value. The 1st respondent, having reversed the findings of the 2nd respondent, holding that the property cannot be treated as a vacant site and fit for converting into flats and further holding that the land is a cultivable land has erred in fixing the market value at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.
4.The highly competent counsel further submits that the 1st respondent, after holding that the land covered under the sale deed is cultivable land, on the basis of the statement obtained from enquiry at the spot, has not furnished the copy of the statement, stated to have been recorded in the enquiry to the appellant and consequently the appellant is prejudiced. Further, the authorities had not discussed the materials on the basis of which they have come to the conclusions and they have erred in not furnishing the copies of the relevant documents or reports or information to the appellant, under which they have based their conclusion. Hence, the very competent counsel requests the Court to set aside the order of the respondents.
5.The 1st respondent has filed counter statement and resisted the above appeal. The respondent stated that the appeal pertains to the deficit stamp duty payable on document No.911-2005 dated 25.05.2005 in respect of 0.33 cents land purchased by the appellant for Rs.23,000/- as per documents. The proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) were initiated since the guideline value as on the date of registration was Rs.14,000/- per sq. ft. Thus, 0.33 cents converted into 14,388 sq. ft. was calculated at Rs.12,01,432/- on which the stamp duty payable was Rs.16,190/-. The stamp duty already paid by the appellant was Rs.1,904/- and thus an amount of Rs.14,215/- was demanded as deficit of stamp duty payable by the appellant.
6.The respondent further submits that a notice under form (I) was served on the appellant on 15.06.2005, calling upon him to furnish evidence for the rate adopted by him within a period of 21 days thereon and to pay deficit duty of Rs.14,216/-. A personal hearing was held on 28.06.2005 and a site inspection was also done on that day. In reply to the demand under form (I) notice, the appellant made a reply representation regarding his objections therein. On 30.06.2005, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore passed a final order treating the lands as cultivable agricultural lands and fixing Rs.11/- per sq. ft. On 30.08.2005, an appeal was presented before the 1st respondent seeking to confirm the duty paid by him already. On receipt of this appeal, the 1st respondent appointed the Deputy Inspector General, Vellore as Enquiry Officer and directed him to inspect the spot personally and recommended the real market value to be fixed. After due site inspection and enquiry with the public, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration submitted his report dated 31.10.2005 confirming the status of land as agricultural land and recommended duty payable to agricultural land on per acre basis.
7.The respondent further submitted that on receipt of this report, an opportunity was given to the appellant to appear for a personal enquiry on 20.02.2006. Though the appellant participated in it, he did not produce any evidence in support of his claim or submit any fresh information except repeating what was already stated by him. Thus, the appellant failed to produce any substantial evidence to prove that the market value adopted by him was correct. On the basis of the factual evidence and materials placed before him in the firm of records such as Special Deputy Collector's report, Deputy Inspector General of Registration's report, enquiry with the local area and after due consideration of all the materials placed and also after taking into account, the locational disadvantage, etc., the final order was passed treating the lands as agricultural lands and fixing the rate at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.
8.The highly competent counsel for the Government, vehemently argued that the Deputy Collector of stamps had inspected the lands and duly conducted enquiry with the local people and come to the conclusion that the land in the particular area is valued at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre at the minimum. The same was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General, who had conducted a second enquiry with the people of the local area. Therefore, the findings of the respondents are appropriate. Further, all the respondents are Government Officials and have followed necessary procedures and come to a correct conclusion after thorough enquiry and after inspecting the land. As such, there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Venugopal, entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal and permit the 1st respondent's order as it is fit to be executed.
9.Per contra, the very competent counsel for the appellant argued that the Village Administrative Officer, who is attached to the Ezhumedu Village, wherein the property is situated in Survey No.189/1, an extent of 0.33 cents, possessed by the appellant herein, had certified that the appellant is cultivating Eucalyptus trees, Bamboo trees and food grain crops. Further, the land has been classified as dry land. The appellant had remitted Rs.1/- as land tax. The learned counsel had also produced the bonafide certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer.
10.From the foregoing discussions, the Court is of the view that (1) The Sub Registrar, Panrutti had demanded stamp duty on the basis of square feet calculation and he had himself converted the measurement of land, an extent of 0.33 cents to 14,388 sq. ft. and fixed the value at Rs.14/- per sq. ft., which is an arbitrary decision taken by him. (2) The 2nd respondent herein / Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) who had fixed the land value at Rs.12/- per sq. ft. had not given any valid reasons for converting the measurement of land from cents to sq. ft. (3) The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and Deputy Inspector General (Registration) had inspected the land on two occasions and made enquiry with the local people and they had come to the conclusion that the land value per acre is at Rs.2,00,000/- at the minimum. This finding had not been supported through any substantial evidence, like transaction deeds undertaken by owners in adjacent lands and the statements collected from the local people have not been furnished to the appellant herein. Therefore, the conclusion of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and Deputy Inspector General of Registration are one sided decisions which is based in nature and prejudiced to the appellant herein. (4) As per the Village Administrative Officer's certificate dated 28.02.2013, it is seen that the appellant is cultivating crops over the said land, an extent of 0.33 cents. As such, it is evident that the appellant is a small farmer and he had purchased the said land for his cultivation. Further, the land has been purchased by the appellant on the basis of measurement of land in cents and not in sq. ft. The Sub-Registrar and the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) have no locus-standi to convert the measurement of land from cents to sq. ft., since it is a cultivable land.
11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the respondents and this Court's view listed above as 1 to 4, as it has compelling force to allow it.
12.In the result, the above appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order passed in proceedings No.51223/N3/2005 on the file of Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai-28, dated 28.02.2006 and confirming the order passed in MRCP.299/05/06 on the file of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore dated 30.06.2005 are set aside and this Court directs the Sub-Registrar, Panrutti to release the sale deed of the appellant, after assigning regular Registration Number forthwith, without demanding any Stamp duty further on the said sale deed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Vs 10.09.2013
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-
cum-Inspector General of Registration,
No.120 Santhom High Road, Chennai.
2.Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Cuddalore.
3.The Sub Registrar, Panruti.
4.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.S.KARNAN.J.
vs
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
C.M.A.No.1358 of 2006
and
C.M.P.No.5897 of 2006
10.09.2013