Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 125 (MAD)

R. Duraisamy v. Chief Revenue Controlling Officer

2014-01-20

S.PALANIVELU

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/land owners against the order dated 08.09.2008 made in Pa.Mu.No.23114/No.2/2006 on the file of the first respondent against the order dated 10.04.2003 made in Mu.Pa.No.348/99 on the file of the second respondent. 2. The sale deed of the appellants herein is dated 07.11.1997 under Document No.3120 of 1997, by means of which the sale deed was executed for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- with deficit stamp duty. Hence, the Sub-Registrar forwarded the sale deed to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore (Stamps), stating that the stamp duty for the guideline value of the property is required to be paid. 3. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore has passed final order since he did not receive any objection from the appellants for Form-I notice. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, has fixed the value of the property as Rs.45,79,738/- and the stamp duty required to be paid as Rs.5,46,384/-. After deduction of Rs.18,000/-, which was already paid as stamp duty, the District Revenue Officer calculated a sum of Rs.5,28,384/- as deficit stamp duty required to be paid. 4. Even after going through the objections filed by the appellants in the form of grounds of appeal, the first respondent fixed the market value of the property as Rs.85/- per sq.ft. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that inasmuch as the market value fixed after ten years, the first respondent has violated the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules. As per Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, within three months from the date of first notice, the order has to be passed. Rule 7 reads as under: "7. As per Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, within three months from the date of first notice, the order has to be passed. Rule 7 reads as under: "7. Final order determining the market value:- (1) The Collector shall, after considering the representations received in writing and those urged at the time of hearing or in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned or their failure to appear in person at the time of hearing in any case after a careful consideration of all the relevant factors and evidence available with him, pass an order within three months from the date of first notice determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument, and communicate the order so passed to the parties and take steps to collect the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any." 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants would cite a judgment of this Court reported in (2012) 3 MLJ 41 (K.Vijayalakshmi vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Tamil Nadu cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028 and others). In Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court observed as follows:- "9. In the above decision in Tata Coffee Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 and Others (supra) this Court held in para Nos.11 (III) (12) and (13) as follows:- 12. Therefore, the procedure for the District Collector to arrive at a final decision in respect of determination of market value and also to determine the difference in duty payable consists of four stages, viz., (a) issuance of Form I notice; calling upon the executant as well as the person in whose favour the document is executed to make representation regarding the market value along with documents and evidence, giving 21 days' time; (b) After the first enquiry is conducted and provisionally market value is ascertained, provisional order has to be passed by the Collector and the same has to be communicated to the person, who is liable to pay duty along with Form No.II. In the said Form No.II, which has to be given as per Rule 6, the Collector directs the person liable to pay duty to lodge his objections or representations against the provisional order regarding market value and it is open to the Collector to give sufficient time as he desires, since no time limit is prescribed under the Rule. (c) After issuing Form No.II on the date mentioned in the notice or on any other subsequent date and considering any other objection on the said date of enquiry, which is actually the second enquiry, and even in the absence of any party appearing, considering all relevant factors and evidence available with him, the Collector has to pass such final order as stipulated in Rule 7, within three months from the date of the first notice viz., the notice given in Form No.I and such final order shall be communicated to the parties to the document. (d) Thereafter, it is for the Collector to take steps to collect the amount in the manner known to law, viz., Revenue Recovery Act and the party shall be liable to pay such difference amount within two months from the date of final order. (e) This procedure of conducting enquiry by the Collector as per the above said Rules are made applicable not only in respect of the enquiry conducted by the Collector on reference from the Registering Authority under Section 47-A(1), which is after registering the document, but also in respect of the powers of the Collector to conduct suo motu enquiry under Section 47-A(3) of the Act. ......." In view of the above, the statutory mandates that the first respondent should have passed an order within three months from the date of first notice, without delay, in default the proceedings would be vitiated. 7. In the case on hand, Form-I notice was issued on 02.02.1999 and Form-II notice was issued on 29.01.2003 and order was passed on 10.04.2003 by the District Revenue Officer i.e., four years after the date of first notice. Hence, the proceedings vitiate Rule – 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the first respondent has assessed the market value of the property on the basis of square feet i.e., at Rs.85/- per sq.ft. Hence, the proceedings vitiate Rule – 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the first respondent has assessed the market value of the property on the basis of square feet i.e., at Rs.85/- per sq.ft. and when the proceedings contain features indicating that the land has been remained as agricultural, then the market value of the property fixed at Rs.85/- per sq.ft, is not permissible. 9. In support of his above contention, learned counsel for the appellants would cite a judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (5) CTC 577 (Thajunissa and another vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai Collectorate and others) wherein it is stated that "Where five years after registration, enquiry triggered by recommendation of Deputy Inspector General of Registration that lands are in developing area and ought to be valued as urban land and no enquiry was conducted before re-determination of market value of the property, then the order of re-determination of market value of the property is illegal and quashed." 10. In the case on hand also, after 10 years from the date of registration, the market value was fixed by the first respondent on the basis of sq.ft for the agricultural land and hence, there is no legal position at all. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings and in consistent with the earlier findings of this Court, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not enforceable and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the order passed by the first respondent dated 08.09.2008 in Pa.Mu.No.23114/N2/2006. The appellant is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited at the time of admission of this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.