Aggrieved over the order passed by the first respondent, the appellant- purchaser has filed this appeal. The appellant has purchased a land of an extent of 1.98 Acres of nanja land on 24.01.2005 for a sum of Rs.47.00 lakhs and paid the stamp duty. Thereafter, the third respondent District Revenue Officer has redetermined the value of the property at Rs.3,19,14,441/- and directed the appellant to remit the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. Against the order passed by the third respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal to the first respondent, on the ground that no notice whatsoever was given to her during redetermination of the land and no enquiry was also conducted. Only after the intervention of this Court in W.P.No.3423 of 2007, by its order, dated 12.02.2007, the appellant filed the appeal before the first respondent. 2. The first respondent has considered the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, and confirmed the market value fixed by the third respondent. The first respondent has observed that the appellant has registered the sale deed on the valuation of the property at Rs.177/- per sq.ft. He has also found that the land registered by the appellant was not an agricultural land, which falls within the corporation limits, and valued the same at Rs.1,60,00,000/- per acre, following the guideline value at Rs.369/- per sq.ft.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the order passed by the first respondent is illegal and without any basis. The first respondent, without any rhyme or reason, has fixed the guideline value of the land at Rs.369/- per sq.ft. There is no document to show as to how he arrived at the said conclusion. In spite of the classification of the land in the revenue records, the first respondent has held that it is not an agricultural land. Further, on the basis of a report of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, the first respondent redetermined the value of the land at Rs.1.60 crores per acre, by adopting the guideline value at Rs.369/- per sq.ft. The order of the first respondent came to be passed pursuant to an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, confirming the order passed by the third respondent under Section 47 (A) (3).
4. While redetermining the value under Section 47 (A) (3) and 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act suo motu, the authorities are expected to follow Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968. Rule 11-A mandates that for the purpose of deciding an appeal, the appellate authority may (a) call for any information or record from any public office, officer and 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.
5. In the instant case, the mandatory provision of issuing notice and furnishing the documents relied on by the authorities to the appellant are not followed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed, for violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules and also for violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968, clearly specify that the appellate authority shall record the reasons for arriving at the market value of the property. A reading of the impugned order would show that no such exercise has been followed. On that score also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the land still remains an agricultural land and not a house site, as assumed by the first respondent. In support of his contention, he would rely upon a judgment of this Court in Thajunnisa and Another v. The Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Chennai, and two others, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 577, wherein it is held that intending use of property in furture is not a valid ground for redetermination of the market value. In the very same judgment, the issue as to the registration of agricultural land is taken up on appeal by the respondents, wherupon, a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the views of the learned single Judge in its judgment in Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v. Thajunnisa and Others, 2015 (6) MLJ 129, observing that just because the lands in question are having the potential of being converted as house sites in future, the authorities, in this regard, cannot allow their imagination to run riot or to indulge in assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures etc., and it shall be registered as agricultural land as it prevailed on the date of registration.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, by producing a letter from the Registration Department, dated 06.07.2010, would submit that the land in question falls within Survey No.3/502-2A on the By-pass Road, Coimbatore. She would also submit that a reading of the registered document would show that there is a house in the property bearing Door No.16, which itself would show that it is only a house site and not an agricultural land and that since the property lies on the By-pass Road, the same shall be valued only at square foot rate and, therefore, the order of the first respondent need not be interfered with.
9. Heard the rival contentions.
10. It is well settled that registration of a property shall be considered as to its classification on the date of registration. As per the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Coimbatore, dated 16.07.1977, the property is classified as agricultural land in revenue records and registers. The registered document also discloses the land as nanja agricultural land, measuring an extent of 1 acre 52 cents. During inspection, it was found that no agricultural operations were carried out. Only because the door number is given to the superstructure existing on the registered property, it cannot be construed as a house site. The first respondent should form subjective satisfaction on the basis of records for the purpose of deciding the appeal, as contemplated under Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1988; he should have obtained information or records from the public office or authority under the Government or local authority; and he should also have recorded statements from such authorities and inspected the property after due notice to the parties.
11. In the present case, it is clear that no notice was issued to the appellant and by intervention of this Court in W.P.No.3423 of 2007, she was directed to file an appeal. Thereafter only, she filed the appeal, which clearly shows that no notice was given to her. Even a reading of the impugned order clearly shows that no documents were referred to and no opportunity was given to the appellant, for redetermination of the value.
12. As stated above, it is further well settled that by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v Thajunnisa, 2015 (6) MLJ 129, that the authories, while exercising the suo motu power, shall not allow imagination in redetermination of the market value. Future development shall not be the criterion for fixing the value of the property. When there is no evidence to show that it is not an agricultural land, the first respondent should not have presumed that it is not an agricultural land and it is only a house site. Further, as discussed above, the principles of natural justice are totally violated, thereby the first respondent has not adhered to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is also relevant to point out that the Government of Tamil Nadu, under Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, has framed rules for conversion of agricultural lands for non- agricultural purposes. It is clearly mentioned therein that for converting an agricultural land into a house site, the land owner shall pay 3% of the market value, as conversion charges. In that event also, there is no revenue loss to the Government.
13. From the above, it is clear that the first respondent has failed to form any subjective satisfaction as to the prejudice caused to the State by revenue loss and he also failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, as mandated under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act and also Rules 11-A and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968, framed on this aspect. As such, the order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings No.10769/N2/07, dated 22.05.2009, is set aside.
14. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
08-11-2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking dixit To The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -cum- Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
M.GOVINDARAJ,J.
dixit C.M.A.No.2727 OF 2009 08-11-2017