R. Krishnamoorthy v. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1529, 1532, 1534, 1543 and 1550 of 2022 R.Krishnamoorthy ..Appellant Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), 5th Floor, Office of the District Collector, M.Singaravelar Maaligal No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

2.The District Registrar (Admin), No.10, Kanchipuram Main Road, Chengalpet – 603 002

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Chengalpet Joint II No.10, Kanchipuram Main Road, Chengalpet – 603 002 ...Respondents APPEALS under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, read with Rule 9(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For Appellant : Mr.Illayaraj Kumar for M/s.Ramalingam and Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate ***** COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous appeals have been filed against the common final order passed by the Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, fixing the rate at Rs.850 per sq.ft. with respect to properties covered under five sale deeds registered as Document Nos.3539, 3541, 3542, 3543 and 3544 of 2016, on the file of the third respondent.

¶2CMA No.1529 of 2022 pertains to the purchase made by the appellant with respect to 2/5th undivided share of agricultural lands measuring nearly 0.44 cents out of 1.10 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 63/6, 57/2, 57/1, 56/2C, 56/2B and 61/1 with a right of 2/5 share in the well. That apart, the appellant had also purchased 1/5th undivided share in the agricultural land equivalent to 85.85 cents out of 4.29 acres in Survey Nos.57/2, 63/3, 63/4, 63/5, 54, 58/1, 58/2, 58/3 58/5, 73/4 and 63/7 at Thirutheri Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District, through a registered sale deed namely Doc.No.3541 of 2016 dated 16.06.2015 on the file of the 3rd respondent.

¶3CMA No.1532 of 2022 pertains to the purchase made by the appellant with respect to 1/5th undivided share of agricultural land equivalent to 19 Cents from and out of 0.91 Acres of land comprised in S.Nos.57/3, 63/8, 70/4 and 58/4 of Thirutheri Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District by a sale deed dated 16.06.2015 registered as Doc.No.3544 of 2016 with the 3rd respondent.

¶4CMA No.1534 of 2022 pertains to the purchase made by the appellant with respect to 1/5th undivided share of agricultural land equivalent to 8.2 Cents from and out of 0.41 Acres of land comprised in S.No.63/1of Thirutheri Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District by a sale deed dated 16.06.2015 registered as Document No.3539 of 2016 with the 3rd respondent.

¶5CMA No.1543 of 2022 pertains to the purchase made by the appellant with respect to 2/5th undivided share of agricultural land equivalent to 0.28.8 cents from and out of 0.72 cents comprised in S.Nos. 59/1A, 74/1A, 74/1B and 74/2 of Thirutheri Village and 1/5th undivided share of Agricultural land equivalent to 0.46 Cents from and out of Acre

2.30 cents of land comprised in S.Nos.62/1, 60/2, 62/3, 59/2A, 59/2B, 62/5 and 74/3 of Thirutheri Village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District by a sale deed dated 16.06.2015 registered as Doc.No.3543 of 2016 with the 3rd respondent.

¶6CMA No.1550 of 2022 pertains to the purchase made by the appellant with respect to 2/5th undivided share of agricultural land equivalent to 16.4 cents from and out of 0.41 Acres comprised in S.No.59/4B and 1/5th undivided share of agricultural land equivalent to

0.31 cents from and out of 1.55 Acres of land comprised in S.Nos.59/5A and 59/5B of Thirutheri Village, Chenglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District by a sale deed dated 16.06.2015 registered as Doc.No.3542 of 2016 on the file of the third respondent.

¶7With respect to the above sale deeds, notices were issued by the 1st respondent by fixing the value and directing the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty. The same was contested by the appellant. But, a common order dated 22.9.2016 came to be passed by the first respondent by determining the market value of the lands at Rs.850 per Sq.ft and directing the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty pertaining to all the sale deeds.

¶8Aggrieved by the said common order passed by the first respondent dated 22.9.2016, the appellant preferred appeals before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28, who had fixed the market value of the subject lands at Rs.850/- per sq.ft and further directed the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty within a time frame. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

¶9To get a bird's eye view of the particulars of the properties, the documents, through which it was purchased and the rates that were fixed, C.M.A.Nos.1529,o1532,o1534, 1543o&o1550oofo2022oooooo areotabulatedoasohereundero:- Sl.N Case No. Date Extent S.No. Conside Rate Guideli SRO Registra DRO IG o. /Doc.No ration Per Sq. ne r Admin Stamp Registra . ft Value tion on Fixatio n

¶1CMAo 16.06.20 Itemo1 63/6 Totalo ItemoI S.No.63/ 1000o Rs.1,50, Rs.850o Rs.850o No.1529 oofo 15/o3541o 44ocentso 57/2 consider Rs.66,00 6 Sq.ft 000/- pero pero 2022 /2016 inoAcreso 57/1 ationo ,000/- Rs.231/-o Perocento Sq.feet Sq.feet

1.10o 56/2Cc Rs.1,94, r44xo Effectiv thor2/5 56/2B 86,000 435.56) e share o ofo do 2017 Agricult Rs.344.3 uralo 8/- S.No.57/ land) Itemo2 1 o ando Itemo2 Rs.1,28, 57/2o

85.80o 86,000/- Rs.231/-o cents o ino r85.80oxo Effectiv

4.29o 435.56) eo2017 Acresr1/ do S.No.56/ 5 o tho Rs.344.8 2Boando Shareoofo 1/- 56/2C Agricult Rs.231/- uralo Effectiv land) e 2017 rPercent Rs.1,500 00)

¶2CMANo.15 16.06.20 19ocentso 57/3,o Rs.23,75 Rs.23,75 S.No.57/ 1000opero Rs.1,25, Rs.850o Rs.850o 32oofo2022 15/3544o in o 0.95o 63/8,o ,000/- ,000/- 3 Sq.ft. 000/-o pero pero /2016 Acreso 70/4o r19 o xo Rs.192/-o perocent sq.feet Sq.feet thor1/5 58/4 435.56)o Effectiv share o ofo do eo2017 Agricult Rs.286.9 uralo 6/- S.No.58/ land) 4 Rs.192/-o Effectiv eo2017 S.No.63/ Rs.192/-o Effectiv eo2017 S.No.70/ Rs.192/-o Effectiv eo2017 rPerocento Rs.1,25, 000)

¶3CMAo 16.06.20 8.2ocentso 63/1 Rs.12,30 Rs.12,30 Rs.246/-o 1000o Rs.1,60, Rs.850o Rs.850o No.1534 oofo 15/o3539o in o 0.41o ,000 ,000/- as o ono Sq.ft 000/-o pero per o Sq.o Sl.N o. Case No. Date /Doc.No . Extent S.No. Conside ration Rate Per Sq. ft Guideli ne Value SRO Registra r Admin DRO Stamp IG Registra tion on Fixatio n 2022 /2016 acres (1/5th share of Agricult ural land) (8.20 x

435.56) = Rs.335.9 today effective 2017 (Percent Rs.1,60, 000) per cet Sq.feet feet

¶4CMA No.1543 /2022

16.06.20 15/3543 of 2016 Item 1

28.80 cents in

0.72 Acres (2/5th share of Agricult ural land) Item 2 46 Cents in 2.30 Acres (1/5th share of Agricult url Land) 59/1A 74/1A 74/1B 59/2A 59/2B Rs.43,20 ,000/- Rs.69,00 ,000/- (46 x

435.56) = s.344.38 /- Item 1 Rs.43,20 ,000/- (28.80 x

435.56) =Rs.344 .38 Item 2 Rs.69,00 ,000/- (46 x

435.56) = Rs.344.3 8/- S.No.59/ 1A 59/2A, 59/2B together Rs.269/- effective S.No.74 – all Sub division s Rs.260/- Effectiv e 2017 (Percent Rs.1,75, 000/-) 1000 Sq.ft. Rs.1,75, 000/- per cent Rs.850 per Sq.feet Rs.850 per Sq.feet

¶5CMA No.1550 of 2022

16.06.20 15/ 3542/20 Item 1

16.40 Cents in 0.41 Acres (2/5th share of Agricult ural Land) Ite, 2 31 Cents in 1.55 Acres (1/5th Share of Agricult ural Land) Total 59/4B 59/5A 59/5B Rs.24,60 ,000/- Rs.46,50 ,000/- Rs.71,00 ,000/- Item 1 Rs.24,60 ,000/- (16.4 x

435.56) = Rs.344.3 8/- Item 2 Rs.46,50 ,000/- (31 x

435.56) Rs.344.3 8/- S.No.59/ 4B (PerSq.ft Rs.1000 /-) 1000 Per Sq.deet Rs.1000 /- Per feet Rs.850 PerSq.fe et Rs.850 Sq.ft

¶10The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in each appeal by justifying the fixation of the value at Rs.850 per Sq.ft. It is mentioned in the counter affidavits that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration had taken into consideration all the relevant factors as required under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention and Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 (hereinafter called as the Stamp Rules) and the amount has been determined, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, the respondents have sought for dismissal of all these appeals.

¶11Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶12The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant primarily raised two issues. The fist issue that was raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was that apart from the five sale deeds, the appellant had also purchased agricultural lands in Survey Nos.71/3 B measuring an extent of 30 cents through a registered sale deed dated 05.04.2016, which was registered as Doc.No.3540 of 2016. Even in so far as this document was concerned, proceedings were initiated for undervaluation. It ultimately reached the Inspector General of Registration, who, in respect of Doc.No.3540 of 2016, through the proceedings dated 19.11.2021, took into consideration the report submitted by the District Revenue Officer and also the fact that the property is located near the lands in Survey Nos.62 & 63/1 and accordingly, fixed the rate at Rs.425 per Sq.ft. It was contented that the same rate should have been applied in the other five sale deeds also since these properties are also situated adjacent to the property involved in Doc.No.3540 of 2016.

¶13The 2nd issue that was raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was that the Inspector General of Registration had sought for a report of the District Revenue Officer (Registration) with respect to the nature of the property and such a report was also given after conducting a spot inspection. It was contended that the copy of this report was not furnished to the appellant. But, it has been extracted in the impugned order dated 20.12.2021. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submitted that the District Registrar (In-charge), in his report, had fixed the following rates with respect to each document :- Sl. No. Document Number Rate Fixed

¶13539 of 2016 Rs.1,60,000/- per cent which works out to Rs.367/- per Sq.ft.

¶23541 of 2016 Rs.1,50,000/- per cent which works out to Rs.344/- per Sq.ft.

¶33542 of 2016 Rs.850/- per Sq.ft.

¶43543 of 2016 Rs.1,75,000/- per cent which works out to Rs.402/- per Sq.ft.

¶53544 of 2016 Rs.1,25,000/- per cent which works out to Rs.286/- per Sq.ft.

¶14The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that having received a reports from the District Revenue Officer (Registration and District Registrar (In-charge), who conducted a spot inspection and also determined the nature of the property and provided all the particulars, the Inspector General of Registration did not even consider these reports and without assigning any reasons, had fixed the rate at Rs.850/- per Sq.ft with respect to all the five documents.

¶15The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further contended that the appellant is willing to pay the rate that was fixed for the other document at Rs.425/- per sq.ft. even with respect to all these five documents and requested this Court to pass final orders, since this issue has been going on for the last eight years.

¶16Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, apart from reiterating the stand taken in the counters, submitted that the report that was received by the Inspector General of Registration is merely recommendatory in nature and that it does not bind the Inspector General of Registration. He further submitted that the Inspector General of Registration, on considering the various factors provided under Rule 5 of the Stamp Rules, had determined the value and hence, the same does not require the interference of this Court. He also submitted that fixing the rate at Rs.425/- with respect to the other sale deed registered as document No.3540 of 2016, was done considering the fact that the guideline value was fixed at Rs.500/- per sq.ft. Likewise, in the instant case, the guideline value was fixed at Rs.1,000/- and therefore, the Inspector General of Registration had fixed the value at Rs.850/-. Hence, the basis, on which, the value was fixed for the document registered as Doc.No.3540 of 2016 was consistently followed even with respect to five sale deeds, which are the subject matter in these appeals. Hence, it was contended that there are no merits in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶17This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶18The Inspector General of Registration, in the common impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2021, relied upon the report submitted by the District Registrar, Chengalpet (Incharge). With respect to each document, the District Registrar submitted a report by making a spot inspection and describing the nature of property that is involved. The District Registrar also mentioned the rate that can be fixed. While making such a recommendation, the District Registrar has recommended the same guideline value that is prevailing with respect to Doc.Nos.3539, 3541, 3543, 3544 of 2016. With respect to Doc.No.3542 of 2016, the District Registrar recommended for fixation of Rs.850/- per sq.ft. as the rate after considering the guideline value of Rs.1,000/- that was prevailing at the relevant point of time.

¶19The Inspector General of Registration, having called for such a report from the District Registrar and after having been provided with the guideline value that was prevailing at the relevant point of time with respect to the subject lands, ought to have considered the same and assigned reasons as to why he is not relying upon the same. The common impugned order is completely bereft of reasoning. The Inspector General of Registration merely stated that for some of the adjacent properties in Survey Nos.71/1, 71/3, 71/5, 73/5, 81/1A6 and 81/1B, the rate has been fixed at Rs.1,000/- per Sq.ft. That apart, the same rate has been fixed with respect to the property in Survey Nos.81/1A1 and thereafter, the Inspector General of Registration proceeded to fix/determine the rate at Rs.850/- per sq.ft. This procedure that has been followed by the Inspector General of Registration is erroneous and it requires the interference of this Court.

¶20The Inspector General of Registration ought to have dealt with the report submitted by the District Registrar, which report contains the description of properties after the spot inspection was made and also the prevailing guideline value. This report is a material document, which must have been taken into consideration when the final orders were passed. That apart, the Inspector General of Registration relied upon certain documents pertaining to the registration of other lands and on going through the same, it is seen that those documents pertained to dealing with house plots, which were sold. In the instant case, the subject properties that are involved are agricultural lands. Therefore, the Authority had to necessarily state as to how the rates that were fixed for house plots were made applicable to the agricultural lands, which were the subject matter in all the documents in question. This Court finds that the impugned proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration suffers from non application of mind and hence, it requires the interference of this Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the common impugned order, which has been put to challenge in these appeals and remand the matter back to the file of the Inspector General of Registration to deal with the issue by following proper procedure within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶21In the result, the common impugned proceedings in Na.Ka. No.54063/N1/2016 dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, confirming the common order dated 22.9.2016 passed by the 1st respondent, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who is directed to apply his mind afresh on the report that has been submitted by the District Registrar and also the grounds that have been raised by the appellant and pass fresh orders on its own merits and strictly in accordance with the relevant Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22In the result, all these civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed with the above directions. No costs.

02.04.2024 Index :Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No To

1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-28.

2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), 5th Floor, Office of the District Collector, M.Singaravelar Maaligal No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

3.The District Registrar (Admin), No.10, Kanchipuram Main Road, Chengalpet – 603 002

4.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Chengalpet Joint II No.10, Kanchipuram Main Road, Chengalpet – 603 002 rka C.M.A.Nos.1529,o1532,o1534, 1543o&o1550oofo2022oooooo N.ANANDoVENKATESH,J rka CMA.Nos.1529,o1532,o1534, 1543o&o1550oofo2022ooooo

02.04.2024