THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.M.A.No.3671 of 2005
and C.M.P.No.18506 of 2005
K.Thenmozhi ... Appellant Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Trichy.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47(10) of Indian Registration Act, against the order dated 16.08.2005 in No.67141 /N4/2004, passed by the 1st respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman For Respondents : Ms.M.Jayasree Government Advocate - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the market value redetermined by the 1st respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in proceedings No.67141/N4/2004, dated 16.08.2005, the appellant/owner of the land has come before this Court with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. According to the appellant, the property is situated between the Vellalar Street and Perumal Koil Street. But unfortunately, there is no access to the property. The authorities below have considered the issue whether it is falling in Perumal Koil Street or Vellalar Street and ultimately came to the conclusion that it is situated between the Vellalar Street and Perumal Koil Street and applied the guideline rate pertaining to Vellalar Street, without assigning any reasons therefor.
3. According to the appellant, the guideline rate could not be applied to the property as it is without access and will not fetch so much value. The 2nd respondent, Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Trichy, had elaborately discussed the factual aspects and redetermined value of the property at Rs.240/- per sq.ft.
4. According to the 2nd respondent, the guideline value for the property situated in Perumal Koil Street is Rs.53.50 per sq.ft and Rs.33.60 per sq.ft for the survey number 555/45. Likewise, the guideline rate for the Vellalar Street is Rs.383/- per sq.ft. and, adopting the guideline rate for Vellalar Street, which is advantageous, has fixed the market value at Rs.245/- per sq.ft. as stated above. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent.
5. The 1st respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, has fixed the market value of the property at Rs.240/- per sq.ft. considering the commercial importance.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that when both the authorities accept there is no access to the property, it is not correct to redetermine the market value at Rs.240/- per sq.ft considering the commercial importance of the area. Since the property is sandwiched between the other properties and there is no access to the property, the value is very meager and the assessment made by him should have been accepted by the authorities below.
7. This Court considered the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
8. There is a clear finding by the authorities that this property has no access at all.
9. Admittedly, there is statutory violation in passing the order under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu (Prevention and Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. Rule (7) of the said Rules 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 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.
(2) A copy of the order shall be communicated to the registering officer concerned for his record.
(3) The difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector shall be paid within two months from the date of final order passed under sub- section (2) or sub section (3) of section 47-A.
(4) The Collector shall, after collecting the difference in amount of stamp duty and interest, if any, under section 47-A, give a certificate in Form III by endorsement on the instrument."
10. The 2nd respondent issued Form-I notice under Rule (4) of the said Rules on 24.09.2001 and a final order was passed on 29.11.2004. The order of the 2nd respondent came to be passed after a period of three years and two months from the date of first notice. This Court in a judgment reported in 2009 (6) CTC 632 (Periasamy and other Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and two others) has categorically held that delay in passing final orders vitiates the entire proceedings. On this ground the entire proceedings is vitiated.
11. Adding further, as per Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rule, 1968, the appellate authority shall conduct site inspection after giving notice to the parties concerned. Rule 11-A of the said Rules reads as under:-
11-A. Decision of the appellate authority. - The appellate authority may, for the purpose of deciding an appeal,-
(a) call for any, information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority;
(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public officer of authority under the Government or the local authority; and
(c) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned.
12. It is mandatory on the part of the appellate authority to conduct site inspection after giving notice to the parties. In the instant case, the site inspection was caused to be done through the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. There is no enabling power under Section 47(A)(5) of the Act to sub-delegate the power. The order passed by the 1st respondent is without application of mind and solely based on the report submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. In a similar circumstance, this Court in C.M.A.No.2820 of 2012 dated 05.06.2015 (S.Santhi Vs. The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority & Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others) has held as follows:-
17. "The Authority conferred with certain functions under a statute has to carry out the same on its own such function and cannot delegate the same to another in the absence any contemplation for such delegation under the Act. In the present case, under rule 4 (3) (c) and rule 11-A of the rules, 2nd respondent-Collector and the first respondent Inspector General of Registration respectively, have to inspect the property and there is no enabling provision under the rules or under the Act to delegate such power. Therefore, inspections by other officers at the behest of the respondents vitiate the entire proceedings.
19. The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent purely based on inspection reports of the District Registrar/Deputy Thasildar, who are not authorised under the Act and hence the said inspection reports are not materials collected by the authorities, entitled under the Act. Hence, the proceedings of the second respondent and first respondent are vitiated."
13. Further, this Court, in the case of Rajendran Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and two others, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 589, has held that the 1st respondent has power to redetermine the market value of the property, but he is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. It is mandatory to issue notice to the other side, otherwise the parties would be deprived of their right to offer their explanation, if any. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent is contrary to the said judgment.
14. On all the above aspects, the order passed by the 1st respondent lacks application of mind, and it is violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the statutory provisions.
15. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in proceedings No.67141/N4/2004 dated 16.08.2005, is liable to be set aside.
16. At the first instance, the authorities fixed a sum of Rs.5,180/- for deficit stamp duty and later, it was redetermined as provisional value and there is no final value fixed by them. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if the authorities considered to fix that rate, he is willing to pay the same.
17. Accordingly, the order passed by the 1st respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in proceedings No.67141/N4/2004 dated 16.08.2005, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for redetermination of the market value. The 1st respondent is directed to decide the issue following the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the appellant to make such submission before the 1st respondent, when the matter is taken up, and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same also before deciding this matter.
18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.11.2017
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order asi
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi To The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
C.M.A.No.3671 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.18506 of 2005
10.11.2017