AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—In view of the interconnectivity of the facts and circumstances, these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a
common order.
The appellants are purchasers in pursuance of a Memorandum of Agreement, dated 02.04.2001, with M/s. Techno Engineering Company of
the properties situate in Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai, with a total extent of five grounds and 325 Sq.ft. The Sub-Register after registration
referred the sale deeds u/s 47(A)(1) of the Registration Act to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai, since he was of the opinion that the
properties were undervalued to avoid stamp duty. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) by means of proceedings dated 18.03.2003 fixed Rs.
2,075/- per Sq.ft. as market value of the property and directed to pay Rs. 4,58,224/-. The appellants preferred appeal before the first respondent,
who by means of his proceedings, dated 30.09.2003, after analysing circumstances fixed Rs. 1,821/- per Sq.ft. as market value and directed
payment of stamp duty. Aggrieved against the said orders, the appellants are before this Court.
It is the bottomline contention of the appellants that the guideline value maintained by the Sub-Registrar could not be the basis for determining
the correct market value, that the properties have not been undervalued, that the property lies as irregular trapezodial shape, from which the
property is abutting Nelson Manickam Road only 40 feet, while the total extent is 5 grounds and 325 Sq.ft that the plot is situated on the western
side of the Coovam River and that the vendor applied to the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and obtained ''No objection
certificate'' from them, after enquiry and inspection which shows that the property is worth about Rs. 50,00,000/- and that the impugned order
does not contain reasons for not accepting the value mentioned in the sale deed.
Conversely, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that inasmuch as the order challenged before this Court does contain
sufficient reasons for arriving at the market value of the property, there is no need to interfere with the same. In the impugned proceedings, it is
stated that the inspection report would show that the property situates in Nelson Manickam Road where commercial plots and buildings are
available and the same is a business area and Rs. 2,305/- could be fixed per sq.ft. as market value, that on 04.08.2003, the appellants appeared
and projected their contentions and if the said contentions and the relevant files with the inspection report were scrutinised, it could be seen that a
ground in this locality would fetch Rs. 46/- Lakhs and that taking into consideration the shape of the site and other features Rs. 1,821/- is fixed as
market value per Sq.ft.
The learned Counsel for the appellant would garner support from a decision of the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss
v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors. reported in 2009 3 L.W.236, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:
A bare perusal of the rules make the position clear that Sub-rule (4) enumerates procedure on receipt of reference u/s 47A. Rule 5 speaks
about the principles for determination of market value. Sub-clause (a) refer to lands; (b) house sites; (c) buildings and (d) properties other than
lands, house sites and buildings. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47A clearly reveal the intention of the Legislature that there must be a reason
to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set out in the instrument. It is not a
routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show
lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to under value the subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment
of proper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to the revenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power u/s 47A of the Act is wilful under valuation
of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.
A Division Bench of this Court in the Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. S. Jayalakshmi and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) CTC 305, has held
that when there is no fraudulent intention of evasion of stamp duty payment of instrument, the value as mentioned in the sale deeds have to be taken
as market value of the property.
Identical views have been echoed in may decisions of this Court including the ones, which are as follows:
(i) 2003 (1) LW 562 S. Jayalakshmi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
(ii) 2008 (4) CTC 486 Nalina Veeraraghavan v. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr.
(iii) A.J. Mapillai Mohadeen Vs. Sub-Registrar, Registration Department and Others,
(iv) 2009 (1) CTC 698 Ezhilarasi and Anr. v. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai and Ors.
Following the principles laid down in the above said decisions, it is to be held that when the fraudulent intention for evading the stamp duty could
not be ascertained from the materials available before the authority, it could not proceed under premise that the property has been undervalued in
the sale deed. Further, it is also contented by the appellants that in the original order there was no reason, how the authority came to the conclusion
that the property was undervalued. As there is no mention in the order impugned or any other material to the effect that the property was
fraudulently undervalued and that the registering authority has not furnished proper reasons for his reference, they would vitiate the impugned order
passed by the first respondent, the same deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
With the above observations and directions, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. No
costs.