C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Order of the Inspector General of Registration-cum-The Chief Controller of Revenue, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004, made in No. 36717/N4/Dt. 29.09.2008, to set aside the order of the Inspector General of Registration.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant/petitioner purchased an extent of 4,320 sq.ft., of land in T.S. No. 202 in new Ramnad road, Madurai town, under a registered Sale Deed from one M.Angusamy for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,16,000/-. He presented the said Sale Deed for registration before the third respondent/Joint Sub-registrar No. I, Madurai South. The Sale Deed was executed by the appellant''s vendor in the non-judicial stamp paper, valued at Rs. 28,100/-. The third respondent, who accepted the document for registration, has informed that the appellant/petitioner has to pay the additional stamp duty, for registering the said document, at the rate of Rs. 865/- per sq.ft. and that this additional stamp duty has been claimed on the basis of guideline line value fixed for the said land, which is located at Kamaraj Salai, Madurai and maintained by the respondents'' department.
3. The third respondent/Joint Sub-registrar No. I, Madurai, had accepted the Sale Deed for registration and has given the number as document bearing No. 7541 of 1999 and informed that the said document would be released only after finalisation of the rate of stamp duty on the instrument by the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Madurai. Accordingly, it seems that the Registrar had forwarded the documents under S.R. No. 379 of 1999 to the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Madurai to determine the market value u/s 47 of the Stamp Act. The appellant further submits that on receipt of the intimation from the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Madurai, under Form No. I, dated 20.10.1999, he had raised oral and written objections as to the guideline value and requested to the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Madurai to inspect the site and fix the correct market price. The then Deputy Collector Stamps for the reason best known to him had not inspected the property and there was no intimation from him. Since there was inordinate delay, the appellant enquired the authorities as to the fate of the document. There was no proper response and the excuses given by them were not satisfactory.
4. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner sent a detailed representation on 06.12.2001 requesting the first respondent/Inspector General of Registration to fix the market value for the property in conformity with the market value for T.S. No. 200 of new Ramnad road under document bearing registration No. 913 of 2000, purchased by one K. Radhika. However, there was no reply from any of the authorities. Having realised that there was an inordinate delay, he had sent a representation to the Inspector General of registration under the Right to Information Act on 08.01.2007, with requisite charges. It is thereafter only that the Deputy Collector of Stamps, Madurai, furnished the copies of the order made u/s 47A(5) of the Act and the other records.
5. Therefore, on receipt of copy of this said order, on 22.03.2007, the appellant preferred an appeal u/s 47A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act to the first respondent/Inspector General of Registration. In the said appeal, the appellant had raised various justifiable, cogent and convincing reasons and grounds stating that the determination of the market value for the land in T.S. No. 202, new Ramnad Road at par with guideline value for Kamaraj Salai is totally unjustifiable and that the department had accepted the marked value at Rs. 150/- per sq.ft., in respect of the Sale Deed for the land in T.S. No. 200 of new Ramnad road, purchased by K.Radhika under a document bearing registration No. 913 of 2000, Sub-registrar Office, Madurai South.
6. The first respondent/Inspector General of registration by an Order No. 36717/N4/Dt. 29.09.2008, on a total non-application of mind as to the above factual position and in a whimsical fashion, fixed the market value for the said land at Rs. 700/- per sq.ft., Aggrieved by the said Order, the present appeal is preferred before this Court to set aside the said Order.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued in his appeal that the first respondent''s act of fixing the market value at Rs. 700/- per sq.ft., is an arbitrary one as it has been done without any basis. The guideline value for Kamaraj Salai cannot be applicable to new Ramnad Road property, wherein the appellant''s land is situated. The third respondent accepted the Sale Deed in respect of land situated in T.S. No. 200, Ramnad road and fixed the market value at Rs. 150/- per sq.ft. and also released the said document to the purchaser. As such, the learned Counsel has sought a remedy, in the instant case, for the appellant. The learned Counsel has further argued that the respondent''s department had fixed the market value for the land situated at T.S. No. 202 at Rs. 500/- per sq.ft. in the year 2001 and collected the stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq.ft., from the purchase, namely one Murugan and released his documents. Considering the above said two documents, the appellant is also entitled to get reasonable rate of stamp duty but the first respondent has fixed the land value at Rs. 865/- per sq.ft., Hence, this is not justified. The learned Counsel further pointed out that one Radhika had purchased the land in the year 2000 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq.ft. in respect of T.S. No. 200, which is an adjacent vacant site. The learned Counsel contended strongly that the guideline value for the land in T.S. No. 200, New Ramnad Road, in the year 2000 was Rs. 150/- per sq.ft., and that the guideline value for the adjacent property namely T.S. No. 202, New Ramnad Road could be less than Rs. 150/- only.
8. The respondent''s department failed to appreciate Mrs. Radhika''s document and Murugesan''s document. Both these documents have been registered in the year 2000 and 2001 and it has been done for adjacent lands of the appellant''s lands. The land value has been fixed at Rs. 150/- and Rs. 300/- per sq.ft., for the above mentioned property. It is pertinent to note that the above two sale deeds have been executed after the appellant had purchased the land in the year 1999.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that over the land, shrubs are prevalent and the land also is unleveled and is used as a dumping area for waste matter. The land is also lying four feet below the road. The land is situated in an undeveloped area. Moreover, there is a drainage called Panaiyur Canal and Thottathetti drainage canal and both these canals are running near by the land of the appellant. Further, the learned Counsel pointed out that there is a public toilet in front of the appellant''s land. The property is not situated in a prime area and hence cannot be termed as a developed area. The said lands of the Radhika and Murugan and the appellant''s lands and adjacent lands all have the same type of soil and are located in an undeveloped area. As such, the respondent''s fixation of land value of the appellant''s land at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 700/- per sq.ft., has been done without any application of mind.
10. The learned Counsel supporting his case has filed Town Survey Plan, Photography of location and Inspector''s report of District Registrar (Madurai South) and guideline value of survey Nos. 202/1, 202/2 and 200 for comparison of the appellant''s land.
11. Hence, the learned Counsel has prayed to set aside the order of the first respondent and fix the correct guideline value. The learned counsel, in support of his arguments has cited the Judgments made in
Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) [as amended by T.N. Act 24 of 1967], Section 47-A - Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1968, Rules 3 to 5 - Authority exercising powers u/s 47-A shall apply various parameters set down in Rules for determination of market value - Such authority should compare land in question with some other land with reference to nature, extent, value, etc. - Onus is on revenue to establish that market value has not been truly set forth and market value as claimed by Department is contemporaneous to document presented for registration.
Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, in Page No. 3.23, reads as follows:
5. Principles for determination of market value. - The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving, at the provisional market value:
(a) In the case of lands-
(i) classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like;
(ii) classification under various tarams in the settlement register and accounts;
(iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification;
(iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question;
(v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which requires special consideration;
(vi) value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity;
(vii) average yield from the land, nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pump sets ;
(viii) the nature of crops raised on the land;
(ix) the use of land, domestic, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes and also the appreciation in the value when an agricultural land is being converted to a residential, commercial or an industrial land.
[item (ix) in Rule 5(a) was added by No. SRO A-209/86 dated 21.11.1986].
(b) In the case of hose sites -
(i) the general value of house sites in the locality;
(ii) nearness to roads, railway station, but route;
(iii) nearness to market, shops and the like;
(iv) amenities available in the place like public offices, hospitals and educational institutions;
(v) development activities, industrial improvements in the vicinity;
(vi) land tax valuation of sites with reference to taxation records of the local authorities concerned;
(vii) any other features having a special bearing on the valuation of the site; and
(viii) any special feature of the case represented by the parties.
12. The learned Counsel argued that as per the guideline value, the stamp duty has been demanded by the respondents. All the respondents had acted within the norms for collecting the stamp duty as per guideline value fixed by the Government. The learned Counsel further argued that the respondents had not acted out of the act and rules. The claim of the respondents towards stamp duty is fair. The first respondent''s order is not vitiating. The learned Counsel further argued that the property is located within Madurai Town and is in a prime area and is well developed. There is no infirmity in the said impugned order. Both the learned Counsels had made suggestions to this Court for fresh adjudication before the Special Collector (Stamps).
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsels, citations cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant and impugned order passed by the first respondent, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for fresh adjudication. Hence, this Court directs the Special Collector (Stamps) to dispose the case after hearing both sides within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order in the presence of both sides.
14. Accordingly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and the Order passed by the Inspector General of Registration-cum - The Chief Controller of Revenue, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004, made in No. 36717/N4/Dt. 29.09.2008, is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
