Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

8.After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, two issues fall for consideration in this Writ Petition. Firstly, as to whether the authorities rightly exercised the power available under section 47(A) of the Act, based on any material with the registering authority to form an opinion that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instruments. Secondly, if the authorities where in possession of any prima facie material to come to a conclusion that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instruments, whether such power was exercised within the period stipulated under the Act.

10.Sub section 3 of section 47(A) of the Act, as it originally stood, empowered the Collector to exercise suo motu or other action within two years from the date of registration of the instrument, not already referred to him under sub section 1 of section 47 (A) of the Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is subject matter of sale and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, the Collector has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth, he may determine the market value of such property in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub section(2) of section 47(A) of the Act. In terms of the proviso to sub section (3) this power of suo motu determination within two years shall not apply to any instrument registered before the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967. By Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 2000, the time limit stipulated for exercising such suo motu power was made as five years instead of two years with effect from 6.3.2000.

16.It is a settled legal principle that the intending use of the land in future cannot be the basis for adopting the value (see) SPECIAL, DEPUTY COLECTOR (STAMPS) v CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS LIMITED [2004 (1) CTC 187].

17.In EZHILARASI v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION [(2009) 1 CTC 698], this Court held that the onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document tendered for registration and after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme and the decisions of this Court, it was held that where there is a doubt, that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, the guideline value is only a primafacie guide for ascertaining the market value and the department have to go by various parameters set down in the Rules, for determination of the market value if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document.

18.In the instant case, there was no material to doubt the market value as set forth in the instrument as the third respondent without entertaining any doubt registered the instrument. Further, the procedure required to be followed while determining the market value has been explained by this Court in TATA COFFEE LIMITED Vs STATE OF TAMILNARU [(2008) 3 CTC 614]. The procedure prescribed has not been followed, which is also one more reason to hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law.