S. Nallamuthu vs The Inspector General of Registration, The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and The Joint Sub Registrar

M. Jaichandren, J.—This appeal has been filed to set aside the order, dated 12.10.2007, on the file of the Inspector General of Registration,

Chennai, made in M.M. No. 45636/N-4/07 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to handover the sale deed, dated

27.09.2006, registered as Document No. 7953 of 2006.

Even though various grounds have been raised by the appellant in the above appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant

is that no enquiry had been conducted by the respondents before the impugned order, dated 12.10.2007, had been passed. It has also been

contended that no opportunity was given to the appellant to show that the property in question is an agricultural land and that the stamp duty paid

by the appellant is based on the correct value of the property and that it is in accordance with law.

It has been further stated that the value fixed by the respondents in respect of the property is arbitrary and illegal. The respondents had not taken

into consideration the revenue records pertaining to the land before fixing its value the guidelines prescribed for fixing the value of the land had not

been followed by the respondents. The provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of under-valuation of

instruments) Rules, 1968, have not been followed by the respondents in determining the market value of the property in question.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the appellant had purchased 1 acre and 43 cents of Nanja land

in R.S. No. 38/3 in Avaniapuram village, Madurai South Taluk, as per sale deed No. 7953/2006, dated 27.09.2006, registered in the office of the

third respondent. In the said document, the value of the property arrived at by the appellant was Rs. 2,50,000/-. The guideline value of the

property purchased by the appellant was noted as Rs. 22/- per sq.ft. under the main classification noted as ''Residence''. The third respondent had

referred the document to the second respondent for taking action, u/s 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, vide 135/06, dated __.09.2006

for the fixation and collection of deficit stamp duty. The document had been received by the second respondent, on 11.10.2006. The appellant had

been directed to remit a sum of Rs. 79,760/- as the deficit stamp duty. The appellant had received the Form-I notice and had submitted a petition,

dated 16.11.2006, which had been received by the office of the second respondent, on 20.11.2006. The property was inspected by the former

Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) and he had decided that the property is not an agricultural land and that it would become a house site in the

near future. Hence, the market value of the land had been fixed at Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. Therefore, the value of the said property had been arrived at

Rs. 12,47,000/-. The stamp duty for the said property amounts to Rs. 99,760/-. Therefore, the appellant was ordered to pay the deficit stamp

duty of Rs. 79,760/-, by the proceedings in Roc.S.R.202/2006, Madurai IV, dated 27.12.2006.

It has been further stated that the property in question had been inspected by the then Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), in the presence of the

appellant, along with the concerned officials. Based on the inspection, it was decided that the land in question was not an agricultural land and that

it would become as a house site in the near future. Hence, the market value of the land had been fixed at Rs. 12,47,000/- and the appellant was

ordered to pay Rs. 79,760/- towards deficit stamp duty. Challenging the said order, the appellant had filed an appeal in the month of August,

2007, belatedly. Therefore, the first respondent had rejected the appeal as unsustainable.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of

the considered view that the impugned order, dated 12.10.2007, issued by the first respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. The main

contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are that no proper enquiry had been conducted by the respondents before fixing the value of the land

in question and no option had been given to the appellant to put forth his case before the land value had been fixed. Nothing has been shown on

behalf of the respondents to substantiate their claim that an inspection of the property had been conducted and the appropriate value of the land

had been fixed only after giving the appellant sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. Under such circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent, dated 12.10.2007. However, it is open to the respondents to fix the value of the land in

question after conducting a proper enquiry in respect of the property concerned, after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to put forth his

case and fix the value of the land by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Further, the second respondent is directed to return the sale deed of the appellant, dated 27.09.2006, registered as document No.

7953/2006, after making the necessary endorsements on it and after obtaining an undertaking from the appellant to produce the sale deed before

the appropriate authorities as and when it is required. The second respondent is to return the sale deed to the appellant, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs.