Revenue Divisional Officer vs P.M.A.N. Nagarathnam

N. Arumugham, J.—Heard. An order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, in ROC. B2/23203/84 dated 14.4.1987, in

a matter referred to him for adjudication u/s 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1987) by the Joint Sub Registrar 1 of

Virudhunagar, with regard to the under valuation of a document for the purpose of Stamp Duty payable under the relevant Act, and the consequent

appeal made in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1987 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, and the order of the lower appellate Judge reversing

the order of the R.D.O. made on 7.10.1988, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

The respondent herein purchased an extent of 98 cents of vacant land, for a sum of Rs. 2,940 situate in Survey No. 131/34 from one

Mariyammal of Rosalpatti village. With regard to its value, for the purpose of stamp Duty and general stamps payable on the said instrument, as the

Joint Sub Registrar Number I. Virudhunagar, found it very low against its real value at Rs. 19,600 being the market value, issued a notice in Form

No. 1, as provided under Rule 4 of the relevant Act to the parties concerned and for which, there appears, there was no objection or

representation. Therefore, the matter has been referred to for the adjudication before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, who in turn in

ROC 82/23203/84 dated 14.4.1987 considered the whole matter afresh after calling for the written objections from the concerned persons by

sending a notice in Form II.

For various reasoning and consideration made, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, in the above reference cited, overruled the objection

raised by the claimant/the respondent herein and confirmed the provisional order and whereby, directed him to remit the deficit stamp Duty of Rs.

1,995 to the concerned office at the rate fixed by the Tahsildar.

Challenging the said order, an appeal in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1987 has been preferred by the respondent herein before the learned Subordinate

Judge, Srivilliputhur. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as above referred was set

aside and the appeal was allowed in full by the lower appellate Judge. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner herein, as

above referred.

I have heard Mr. Swaminathan, learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) for and on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. Manoharan,

learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant herein.

With regard to the purchase of an extent of 98 cents of vacant land under the document in question, for the sum of Rs. 2,940 by the respondent

herein from one Mariyammal of Rosalpatti Village, an instrument as provided by the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act had been prepared

and presented for registration, there was no controversy or dispute among the parties herein. As the Registering authority felt that the property

referred to in the said document has been undervalued, it appears that he has referred the matter to the Tahsildar of concerned jurisdiction for the

relevant proceedings to be initiated. Accordingly, by virtue of Section 47-A(i) the matter has been referred for adjudication before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, who is the revision petitioner herein. As part of the proceedings, it appears further a written objection was

obtained from the respondent herein by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in Form No. 2 of the Act as evident from the impugned order. However, it

is noticed that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer has not at all adverted his mind to any of the objections raised by the claimant though it is

available with him in writing nor has he recorded oral evidence either from the claimant or from the revenue officials concerned. Even for the data

sale deeds relied on by him, there was no semblance of proof or relevancy clinching the proximity of the said documents to the property in

question. The only document, document No. 1079 of 1984 dated 14.9.1984 relating to the property situate in S. No. 131/3-A of Rosalpatti

village has not even been filed before him for consideration.

Above all and as a climax, learned R.D.O. has not made any attempts to scrutinise how the higher value either at the rate mentioned by the Sub

Registrar or the Tahsildar would have been possible. The case records do not disclose as to whether the learned Officer has adverted his mind to

the value found in the Government guidelines for the property in question but instead of the above exercise to be necessarily done by him, it

appears he has overruled the objections raised by the claimant and confirmed the provisional order passed by the concerned authorities and

directed the claimant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,995 fixing, the value of the property as Rs. 19,600 which procedure adopted by the

learned R.D.O., with great constraint in my view is totally against the settled legal principles and norms, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law for

a single moment.

However, while adverting to the said laches above referred, though a grievance was projected before the learned lower appellate authority the

lower appellate authority, though set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, has not even adverted his mind

to the guideline value fixed by the Government nor evinced any interest in perusing the relevant Government records or proper evidence to find out

the correct value of the property in question. He ought to have sent for the guide-lines value fixed by the Government for the property in question

and if for any reason, he found that the R.D.O. while passing the order at the inception has not followed the correct procedure, then he ought to

have remanded the matter for fresh disposal but however, he allowed the appeal as if the liability has become automatically extinguished. In this

context, it is noticed that if a property purchased under the document in question is found to be undervalued purposefully, then one must have

taken note of the fact that the proper revenue due to the Government is being evaded and that therefore, it is not a single and complete process but

however a continuing one and the liability if established is bound to be executed. This norm however has been ignored by both the courts below,

which resulted in the loss of revenue to the State and also great injustice to a respectable citizen of this State for the simple reason of not following

the procedure laid down by law. It has, therefore, under the circumstances, become necessary for me to interfere in this matter for the reason of

the gross error committed by the learned lower appellate authority as well as the learned Revenue Divisional Officer concerned while passing the

impugned orders.

To meet the ends of justice, I must necessarily set aside the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority made in C.M.A. No. 3 of

1987 on 7.10.1988 and the initial order passed by the learned R.D.O. under that appeal but however to remand the matter to the learned Revenue

Divisional Officer for consideration of the whole matter afresh and to dispose the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of 8

weeks from the date of receipt of the records by giving an opportunity to the claimant/respondent as well as others concerned, to adduce oral and

documentary evidence and ascertain the data-sale deed with reference to proof and relevancy and the guideline value for the property in question

and with reference to the proximity of the place purchased by the claimant/respondent. While doing so, I would make it clear that none of my

observations made above are to be taken as guiding factor for arriving at the proper conclusion after the full enquiry.

With the above direction, the revision is allowed and accordingly, the impugned order passed in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1987 on 7.10.1988 is set

aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration into the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai. There will be no order as to costs

under the circumstances.