The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the order of the first respondent namely, the Inspector General of Registration made in P.M.No.57204/N4/2004 dated 09.12.2005 passed under Section 47 A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act in and by which he has confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) dated 27.09.2004 fixing the market value of the property in the sale deed bearing No.628/2000 at Rs.15,37,824/- as against Rs.2,70,542/- which has been reflected in the document.
2.The sale deed in question was presented for registration and after conducting spot inspection, the Sub Registrar demanded a sum of Rs.1,800/- as additional stamp duty and the document was registered as document No.628/2000. Subsequently, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai issued notice in Form I under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. The appellant has sent a reply to the said notice on 29.08.2002. Thereafter, the second respondent claims to have issued a notice under Form II along with the order provisionally determining the value of the property at Rs.15,37,824/- on 31.12.2003. The said provisional order specifically states that despite service of notice under Form I, the appellant has not filed any objections and hence the valuation adopted by the Sub Registrar is confirmed. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the final order on 27.09.2004, confirming the provisional order passed on 31.12.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai who in turn passed an order dated 09.12.2005 confirming the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed at the instance of the purchaser.
3.Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant was not served with any notice under Form II and his objections dated 29.08.2002 were not considered by the second respondent while passing orders.
4.Therefore, this Court has directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce records. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader has produced the records.
5.From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has sent a reply to the Form I notice on 29.08.2002 and the same is available in page No.5. Though Form II notice and provisional order are available in the file, there is no proof to show that Form II notice or the provisional order have been served on the appellant. Further, the provisional order dated 31.12.2003 states that the appellant has not made any objections to the notice under Form I. This is against the facts. The objections dated 29.08.2002 sent by the appellant has been received by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai on 29.08.2002 and the same is very much available in the file.
6.A perusal of the final order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) on 27.09.2004 reveals total non application of mind. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows.
?,e;j Mtzj;jpy; fz;Ls;s nrhj;jpd; mq;fhb kjpg;G ,Wjpahf eph;zak; nra;a tprhuiz 31.12.2003 Njjpad;W Nghlg;gl;bUe;jJ. fpiuajhh; M[h; Mftpy;iy M[uhdhh;.
Mtzjhuh;fs; nrhj;J kjpg;G ,Wjp nra;J FiwT Kj;jiuj;jPh;it cWjp nra;ag;gLfpd;wJ.?
7.From the above, it could be seen that there was total non application of mind on the part of the Special Deputy Collector while passing the final order dated 27.09.2004, in fixing the market value of the property. In my considered opinion, none of the guidelines enumerated under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 had been followed by the authorities. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities concerned are set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the second respondent namely, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai who will issue a fresh Form II notice along with a provisional order and decide the value of the land in question after affording an opportunity to the appellant. It is open to the appellant to pursue the remedies depending on the valuation fixed by the second respondent.
8.In fine, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2006 is closed.
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration Chennai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) District Collectorate Complex, Madurai-20.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Solavandan. .