This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the proceedings of the first respondent dated 09.09.2005 bearing No.PA.MU.No.66084/N4/2004 confirming the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.Ci.Pi.No.109/04/A2, dated 19.11.2004.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the first respondent has failed to appreciate the market value of the property and also failed to consider the fact that the building in the schedule property was over twenty five years old and provision had not been given for depreciation. It is further contended that the first respondent has failed to appreciate that the schedule property does not possess any amenities and facilities which will in any manner enhance its value. Further, the first respondent has failed to appreciate that apart from having Mount Road for its Northern boundary, the schedule property does not possess any other value adding features. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the first respondent has failed to appreciate that there is no parking facility in the schedule property and since it immediately abuts Mount Road, vehicles cannot be parked on the road and as a result, clients are unable to access the building. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent has erred in arriving at a value of Rs.6,250/- per sq. ft. as against the value of Rs.5,500/- per sq. ft. fixed by the second respondent. Hence, the first respondent ought not to have fixed the market value as Rs.6,250/- per sq. ft. Further, the first respondent has failed to take into consideration the wide discrepancy in the value of the properties adjacent to each other. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the proceedings of the first respondent has to be set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed.
3. Even though notice was served on the respondents and their names are also printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence, this Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the proceedings of the first respondent, it is seen that the case property is situated at Mount Road, Anna Salai, Chennai. The first respondent, after considering the situation of the property, rightly rejected the Document No.182 of 2003 in which, the market value of the property was fixed as Rs.5500/- per sq. ft. The market value fixed in the above said document will not be applicable to the present case property. Since the disputed property is situated at Mount Road, Anna Salai, Chennai, which is nearby to the commercial complex and trading institutions, the first respondent, after considering all the facts and circumstances, fixed the market value of the property as Rs.6250/- per sq. ft. This Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity in fixing the market value of the property as Rs.6250/- per sq. ft. Further, the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., visited the site and valued the building as Rs.10,12,709/-. The first respondent, after considering the value fixed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, finally fixed the market value of the property. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings of the first respondent and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the proceedings of the first respondent and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
20.03.2017 Internet : Yes Jrl To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), District Collector's Office, 5th Floor, M.Singaravelar Maligai, No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
3. The Sub Registrar, (District Registrar Cadre), Triplicane, Chennai - 600 014.
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Jrl C.M.A.No.3746 of 2005 20.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in