P. Chinnikrishnaiah vs The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority

R. Subbiah, J.—Both the above appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Pa. Mu. No. 26910/No. 1/04 in Appeal No. 30231/No. 1/2003 and Appeal No. 30232/No. 1/2003, respectively.

Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same and the parties in both the appeals are also one and the same, these appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in both the appeals, are as follows:-

3(a) The appellant is an Executive Trustee of a registered educational Trust and a recognised Matriculation School established at Tiruttani under the name of "Dr. V. Gangusamy Naidu Matriculation School". The Management of the said School had purchased a property covered in Survey Nos. 28/5 and 28/6 measuring to an extent of 10,028 sq.ft., under a sale deed dated 24.03.1996, registered as Document No. 770/96 on the file of Tiruttani Sub Registrar''s Office. Further, by way of another sale deed dated 10.01.1997, the management of the school had purchased a piece of land measuring to an extent of 37,114 sq.ft. covering in Survey Nos. 28/3, 28/4, 28/6, 29/2A1 and 334, and got it registered as Document No. 560/97 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruttani. The lands purchased by the appellant are barren lands with dense bushes, thorns, boulders and big rocks being the slope of the hillock of Tiruttani village. The properties so purchased under both the sale deeds are the lands situated on the slope of a hillock and adjoining the forest poramboke. The said lands were purchased for the purpose of expansion of the school building and for providing the amenities of School playground, the prayer hall, etc.

3(b) At the time of registration, the appellant has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 6,030/-, valuing the property under Document No. 770/96 at Rs. 50,140/-.

Similarly, the appellant has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 22,275/- valuing the property under Document No. 560/97 at Rs. 1,85,570/-. The Registering Authority referred both the documents to the second respondent under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, since the properties were valued less than the market value. The 2nd respondent, after observing the formalities under the Stamp Act, passed an order dated 07.05.2003, fixing the market value of the property under Document No. 770/96 at Rs. 216/- per.sq.ft. and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,53,902/- towards deficit stamp duty. So far as the property purchased under Document No. 560/97 is concerned, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 02.06.2003, determined the market value of the property comprised in S. Nos. 28/3, 28/4, 28/5 at Rs. 27/- per sq.ft., for S. No. 28/6 at Rs. 136/- per sq.ft. and for S. No. 334 at Rs. 9/- per sq.ft., and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,71,473/- as deficit stamp duty.

3(c) Aggrieved over the orders passed by the 2d respondent dated 07.05.2003 and 04.06.2003, the appellant had filed two appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 30232 of 2003 (Document No. 770/96) and 30231 of 2003 (Document No. 560/97) before the 1st respondent. So far as the land in respect of Survey Nos. 28/5 and 28/6 covered under Document No. 770/96 is concerned, the appellate authority (1st respondent), by order dated 16.02.2004, has reduced the amount of Rs. 216/- per sq.ft., as fixed by the 2nd respondent, to Rs. 150/- and in respect of Document No. 560/97, the appellate authority has uniformly fixed the market value at Rs. 165/- per sq.ft. in respect of survey Nos. 28/3 to 28/6, 29/2A1 and 334.

3(d) Challenging the said order, the appellant had earlier preferred two appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 1492 & 1493 of 2004 before this Court. In those appeals, by order dated 28.04.2009, this Court set aside the order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration, with a direction to the 1st respondent to issue notice to the appellant and conduct a fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to the appellant to put forth his contentions and complete the proceedings within a period of two months. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 1492 & 1493 of 2004, dated 28.04.2009, reads as follows

On a careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, I find that the original authority has fixed the market value at Rs. 216/- per sq.ft. in respect of Survey Nos. 28/5 and 28/6 covered under Document No. 770/96. So far as the property purchased under Document No. 560/97 is concerned, the revenue authority has fixed Rs. 27/- per sq.ft in respect of Survey Nos. 28/3, 28/4 and 28/5 and Rs. 136/- per sq.ft. in respect of Survey Nos. 28/6, 29/2A1 and Rs. 9/- in respect of S. No. 334/-. In the appeal, the appellate authority has reduced the market value at to Rs. 150/- in respect of Document No. 770/96, but in respect of Document No. 560/97, for the same survey number covered under Document No. 770/96 (S. No. 28/5 and 28/6), the appellate authority has enhanced the amount at Rs. 165/- per sq.ft. Now, the question that arises in these appeals is whether the appellate authority can enhance the amount without issuing notice in the appeal filed by the appellant for reduction of the market value?

In my opinion, in the absence of any specific provision in the Stamp Act to enhance the stamp duty in the appeal filed by the purchaser, without issuing any notice expressing the intention to enhance the market value, the order passed by the 1st appellate authority by enhancing the stamp duty, is not correct for the simple reason that the appellant should not be put into sudden shock and surprise in the appeal filed by him challenging the enhancement of the market value of the land. The appellate authority before passing the order, ought to have issued notice expressing his intention to enhance the amount. But, unfortunately, no such notice was issued in the case on hand. That apart, the appellate authority has adopted two different market value, one in respect of Document No. 770/96 and another in respect of Document No. 560/97 for the land comprising in survey Nos. 28/5 and 28/6. This shows the non-application of mind on the part of the appellate authority in passing the impugned common order.

In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in V.R. Venkataraman Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/The Inspector General of Registration and Others, , in which, the order of the appellate authority was set aside on a finding that the appellate authority has not given any reason whatsoever while confirming the order of the lower authority. When that being so, in the instant case, the appellate authority has adopted two different amounts for the same survey number covered under two documents and no reason was assigned for fixing different market value in respect of land in the same survey number. Therefore, the common order passed by the 1st respondent also is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. Looking at any angle, the common order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, both the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 16.02.2004 is set aside and the matters are remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to the appellant and conduct a fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to the appellant to put forth his contentions and complete the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

3(e) Now, after remand, once again the same order has been passed by the first respondent vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2011, on a reasonings that there is no necessity for reviewing the market value fixed by the 1st respondent by earlier order dated 16.02.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

This Court by order dated 28.04.2009 in C.M.A. Nos. 1492 & 1493 of 2004, remanded the matter to the 1st respondent, on a reasoning that without issuing notice to the appellant in the appeals filed by him for reduction of the stamp duty fixed by the original authority, the appellate authority has enhanced the stamp duty. But, without considering the scope of the remand, once again the same order has been passed by the 1st respondent vide., impugned order dated 18.08.2011, on a reasoning that there is no necessity for reviewing the market value fixed by him by earlier order dated 16.02.2004. Therefore, I am of the opinion, instead of remanding the matter once again to the 1st respondent, this Court itself can assess and fix the stamp duty based on the submissions made on either side and materials available on record.

It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant purchased property covered in Survey Nos. 28/5 and 28/6 to an extent of 10,028 sq.ft., under a sale deed dated 24.03.1996, registered as Document No. 770/96 on the file of Tiruttani Sub Registrar''s Office. Further, by way of another sale deed dated 10.01.1997, the appellant had purchased a piece of land to an extent of 37,114 sq.ft. covering Survey Nos. 28/3, 28/4, 28/6, 29/2A1 and 334, and got it registered as Document No. 560/97 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruttani. The appellant purchased the said lands for the purpose of expansion of the school building and for providing the amenities of School playground, the prayer hall, etc.

At the time of registration, the appellant has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 6,030/-, valuing the property under Document No. 770/96 at Rs. 50,140/-. Similarly, the appellant has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 22,275/- valuing the property under Document No. 560/97 at Rs. 1,85,570/-. The Registering Authority referred both the documents to the second respondent under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act since the properties were valued less than the market value. The 2nd respondent, after observing the formalities under the Stamp Act, passed an order dated 07.05.2003, fixing the market value of the property under Document No. 770/96 at Rs. 216/- per sq.ft. and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,53,902/- towards deficit stamp duty. So far as the property purchased under Document No. 560/97 is concerned, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 02.06.2003, determined the market value of the property comprised in S. Nos. 28/3, 28/4, 28/5 at Rs. 27/- per sq.ft., for S. No. 28/6 & S. No. 29/2A1 at Rs. 136/- per sq.ft. and for S. No. 334 at Rs. 9/- per sq.ft., and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,71,473/- as deficit stamp duty.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on filing appeal as against the order of the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority/1st respondent herein has fixed the market value as Rs. 165/- per sq. ft., in respect of the property purchased under Document No. 560/1997 uniformly without assigning any reason. Similarly, in respect of the same survey number, the appellant authority has uniformly fixed a sum of Rs. 150/- per sq.ft in respect of the Document No. 770/96. When the original authority has fixed a sum of Rs. 27/- for three sub-divisions of same survey number, the authorities below ought have fixed the same market value in respect of other survey number also. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the market value of the properties has been fixed by the original authority without any basis and application of mind. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as the lands purchased by the appellant are adjacent lands, the question of fixing different stamp duty would not arise. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by fixing the stamp duty uniformly, the impugned order passed by the authority could be modified.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents made his submissions supporting the order passed by the 1st respondent.

Before entering into the discussion, it would appropriate to given the details of the lands and the value assessed by the respondents Sl. No.

Sl.No.

S.No.

Value in Sale Deed Per sq.ft

Guide line value Per sq.ft

Value fixed by

Dr. Collector of Stamps per sq.ft

Value fixed in appeal per Sq.ft

I. Sale Deed dt 24.03.1996 in Doc.No.770/1996

1.

28/5

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 23.50

Rs. 216/-

Rs. 150/-

2.

28/6

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 216/-

Rs. 216/-

Rs. 150/-

II. Sale Deed dt 10.01.1996 in Doc.No.560/1997

1.

28/3

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 23.50

Rs. 27/-

Rs. 165/-

2.

28/4

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 23.50

Rs. 27/-

Rs. 165/-

3.

28/5

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 23.50

Rs. 27/-

Rs. 165/-

4.

28/6

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 216/-

Rs. 136/-

Rs. 165/-

5.

29/2A1

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 216/-

Rs. 136/-

Rs. 165/-

6.

334

Rs. 5/-

Rs. 7.50

Rs. 9/-

Rs. 165/-

On perusal of the market value fixed by the original authority, I find that different market values have been fixed in respect of the land situated in the same survey number. But, appellate authority (1st respondent herein), without assigning any reasons, has uniformly fixed the market value at Rs. 150/- in respect of the Survey Nos. 28/5 & 28/6, pertaining to Doc. No. 770/1996. Similarly, the appellate authority (1st respondent) has uniformly fixed the market value at Rs. 165/- per sq.ft. in respect of survey Nos. 28/3 to 28/6, 29/2A1 and 334. But, no valid reason was assigned by the appellate authority for fixing the above said market value.

In fact, in the suit in O.S. No. 42 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) had filed a written statement stating that it is very difficult now to assess the value of the suit land at the time of its purchase. The relevant portion of the written statement filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) is extracted hereunder-

This defendant submits that every purchaser has to pay the stamp duty as per the value of the guidelines. If a party pays a lesser stamp duty, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to send the documents to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madras for assessing the correct market value of the land in order to collect the required stamp duty. If the Special Deputy Collector feels that the land value is high, then he will inspect the lands to assess the correct market value. In this case, he has sent the Special Tahsildar concerned to inspect the suit lands. The Special Tahsildar inspected the suit lands on 10.07.1998 and he has stated in his report that the suit lands are abutting the road and a path way from the Main Road goes to the suit land where the school is situated. He has further stated that the lands have been reclaimed after spending a huge amount. He has further stated that it is very difficult now to assess the value of the suit land at the time of its purchase.

Further, I find that the subject lands purchased by the appellant are situated contiguously. At the time of purchase in the years 1996 & 1997, the lands are barren lands with dense bushes, thorns, boulders and big rocks being the slope of the hillock of Tiruttani village and after purchase, the appellant has levelled the said lands by spending huge money. Further more, it is admitted by the second respondent himself in the written-statement filed in the suit filed by the appellant in O.S. No. 42 of 1999 that it is very difficult to assess the value of the subject land at the time of its purchase.

Hence, considering the facts that the lands are situated contiguously and at the time of purchase, the lands were filled with dense bushes, thorns, boulders and big rocks being the slope of the hillock of Tiruttani village and after purchase, the appellant has levelled the said lands by spending huge money, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 27/- per sq.ft. could be fixed as market value of the lands uniformly in respect of all the above said survey numbers.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent are set aside and a sum of Rs. 27/- per sq.ft. is fixed as market value of the lands in respect of all the above said survey numbers and appellant is directed to pay the stamp duty accordingly, along with the interest as per law.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.