T.R. Gopalakrishnan vs The Inspector General of Registration Cum Principal Revenue Control Authority, Chennai-600028, The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Trichy, The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur and The Joint Registrar, Karur

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order passed by the Inspector General of Registration namely, the first respondent herein. By the impugned order, dated 28.02.2006, the petitioner challenge is to the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector Stamps, Trichy, dated 26.10.2004 was confirmed. The petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Collector Stamps u/s 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Act. The appellate authority considered the objection made by the petitioner and gave a notice of hearing on 03.01.2006. The only contention raised by the petitioner was that the land is kept as agricultural land and there are no buildings in the said lands and closure to the land only there is a cremation yard situated by the municipality. It is also stated that the land is low lying land and there is a possibility of drainage water being stagnated and hence, he has asked for the release of the land on the basis of the post value of the stamp duty paid by him in the document in question. The appellate authority found that as per the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, the lands in question are continued to be shown as cultivable land and potential value of land and the property having the chance of convert into house sites as found in the land and therefore, the document No. 125/1991 submitted for registration has to be valued at Rs. 27,90,000/- and the said valuation given by the Deputy Inspector General was acceptable ad fixed as market value for the said lands and for the deficit stamp duty, the petitioner has also bound to pay 24% interest namely, Rs. 2/- per month for every Rs. 100/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

The writ petition was admitted on 28.04.2006. Pending the writ petition, the application for stay of further proceedings only notice was ordered. Subsequently, since the process fee for serving the respondents was not paid, when the matter came up on 06.09.2006, this Court gave two weeks time, to file process fee for effecting service on the respondents. Since the said condition was not complied with due to the self working order the miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

On notice from this Court, the Joint Sub Registrar has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the fourth respondent dated 05.06.2008.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the procedure for applying the guideline value has not been followed and the fact that it continues to be agricultural land as a relevant factor. They have also produced a extract from the land accounts showing the survey number as agricultural land. A copy of the extract is found at page 15 and the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer in the Sanapiratti village is also found at page 16 wherein he had certified that the land is used for agricultural purpose. But the extract from the village accounts shows in column No. 10 that the land is kept at Tharisu. Therefore, the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer is a given at the instance of the petitioner is self serving one and no value can be attached thereto. But the finding that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration visited the area is set out in the counter affidavit and while it is accepted that the land accounts show that this an agricultural land but the fact that it can be used as house site is not ruled out. Even the petitioner land account extract shows that it was only agricultural land but under column 10, ''Tha'' noted which means Tharisu. Therefore, the petitioner relied upon the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer cannot be accepted. Ultimately, the question of charging stamp duty, the authorities are entitled to go by guideline value and taking into account the potential value of the land and effecting the land transfer through registration. The Court cannot find fault with the orders passed by the respondent and the Act itself provides for a remedy only by way of appeal u/s 47-A (5). The petitioner having exhausted the same and the appellate authority also took note all the relevant factors in upholding the valuation made by the Sub Registrar and the Special Deputy Collector (stamps). This Court do not find any irregularity and illegality in the order passed by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.