THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
C.M.A.Nos.3850 & 3851 of 2005 and C.M.P.Nos.19083 to 19086 of 2005 and 629 & 630 of 2008 V.S.Jagadeesan ... Appellant in both C.M.As.
Vs.
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
2. The Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore.
3. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore – 2. ... Respondents in both C.M.As.
Prayer in both C.M.As.: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to call for the records relating to the order bearing No.37143/N3/2004 and 37144/N3/2004, respectively, dated 30.09.2005 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
For Appellant : M/s.Usha Ramanan For Respondents : Ms.M.Jayasree Government Advocate (C.S) C O M M O N J U D G M E N T The appellant, aggrieved over the redetermination of the market value of his property, has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
2. The appellant had purchased the property in question and registered the same with the 3rd respondent, Joint Sub-Registrar, Tiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore, bearing number 185 of 1997. The guideline rate for the property was fixed at Rs.424/- per sq.ft. Whereas, the document was registered valuing the property at Rs.4,034/- per cent. But, the 2nd respondent, Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore, redetermined the market value of the property at Rs.16,000/- per cent.
3. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has made objections to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore. Thereafter, on confirmation of the market value, preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. The 1st respondent has also confirmed the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore. Hence, the appellant has filed these appeals challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.37143/N3/2004 and 37144/N3/2004 dated 30.09.2005.
4. According to the appellant, the mandatory procedure of conducting an enquiry as per Rule 11-A of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, has not been followed. No opportunity was given to the appellant and the 1st respondent, while the order was challenged before him, has not applied his mind and recorded any reasons, as it is required under Rule 12 of the above-said Rules.
5. It is contended that virtually a non-speaking order has been passed, though a detailed reference is made to the sequence of events as given by the appellant. The 1st respondent has failed to analyse the factual and legal issues and thereby, miserably failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him as statutory first appellate authority. The land in question does not possess the market value fixed by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant would seek that the order passed by the 1st respondent is to be set aside and remand it back for fresh consideration.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the land in question is a river puromboke and the registration itself is not legal. Since the patta has been issued in the name of the appellant, the land value was redetermined by the authorities below. According to the respondents, the land is situated within the town limits and therefore, the value fixed by the 2nd respondent at Rs.16,00,000/- per acre and confirmed by the 1st respondent is based on sound reasons.
7. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that he had relied on reports sent by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore, and on the basis of reports sent by the 2nd respondent. Eventhough various reports and recommendations were considered by the 1st respondent, there is no independent discussion as to why, he has arrived at a conclusion to redetermine the market value of the property.
8. Further, the 2nd respondent has not followed the mandatory requirement prescribed under Rule 11-A of the said Rules and passed the order without giving any opportunity to the appellant. Rule 11-A 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.
9. In so far as the redetermination of the market value of the property is violative of the mandatory procedures laid down by the Rules as above and in violation of the principles of natural justice and without arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the order could not be sustained.
10. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in his proceedings numbers 37143/N3/2004 and 37144/N3/2004, respectively, dated 30.09.2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent is directed to conduct the enquiry affording full opportunity to the appellant under Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. Further direction is issued to the respondents to complete the process within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.11.2017
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order asi M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi To The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.
C.M.A.Nos.3850 & 3851 of 2005 & C.M.P.Nos.19083 to 19086 of 2005 and 629 & 630 of 2008 16.11.2017