IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.09.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.NO.690 of 2005 Gajini Mohammed . . Appellant Vs. 1.The Sub-Registrar, Chithamoor Sub Registration Office, Chithamoor, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chithamoor Division, Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Inspector General of Registration, Kamarajar Salai, Santhome, Chennai. . . Respondents Prayer:The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed to set aside the order of the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.18184/No.1/2004 dated 28.04.2004, by declaring that the appellant had valued the document as per the actual sale consideration based on correct market value for the purpose of registration and consequently cause direction to the respondents to release the document to the appellant. For Appellant :Mr.N.K.Sankaranarayanan For Respondents:Government Pleader JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order, of the third respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, passed in Mu.Mu.No.18184/No.1/2004 dated 28.04.2004, confirming the order passed by the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.C.P.No.42 dated 06.02.2004.
2. Aggrieved by the third respondent’s order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows;-
The appellant has purchased an agricultural land in Survey Nos.68/1, 73/1 and 75/1, Nethapakkam Village, Chithamur Sub registration District. The said sale deed has been registered pending document No.36 of 2001 dated 02.05.2001, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Madurantakkam, the first respondent in the appeal. The appellant has submitted that he has been asked to pay deficit of stamp duty of Rs.99,885/- to release the document, vide order No.Ta.Ka.No.3 of 2003, dated 04.04.2003. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant made an appeal before the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantagam, who received the appeal and passed an order stating that on the basis of the Sub-registrar’s guideline land value fixed for the land, the appellant has to pay Rs.3/- square feet. As such, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.93,912/- as deficit stamp duty as per Indian Stamp Act under Section 47(A)(1).
4. The appellant’s contention before the sub-registrar/first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer/second respondent and the Inspector General of Registration/third respondent are similar and as follows;-
The property was purchased in Survey Nos.68/1, 73/1 and 75/1, Nethapakkam Village, under the registration jurisdiction of the first respondent. The said property was an agricultural land. The inspection by the registration department was made when the paddy was under harvest, in the said land. The property in and around this land is also agricultural land. Active agricultural activity has been going on in the said purchased property of the appellant. The adjacent land was purchased by a person under document No.916 of 2001 dated 27.12.2001, which was registered by the first respondent and the same was released to the person concerned, without any query. The appellant had purchased the remaining portion of the above said land from the same owner. The execution of the sale deed and the registration for the property being done on the same day by the same owner does not have any change in the characteristic of the property to have higher guideline value. The same vendor has also sold 7 acres and 81 cents in various survey numbers adjacent to the property of the appellant. The appellant has purchased the property only for the purpose of agricultural operations. The land value shown as per the records in the registration district is totally high, imaginary and without following any procedure or referring to the previous records. The property would not fetch more than Rs.150 to Rs.200 per cent, even after three years of the purchase.
5. The appellant has particularly laid emphasis on the point that the valuation fixed in the guideline registry is not proper and not based on reality. The value shown in the guideline and value of the excess stamp called for is more or less equal to the market price for which the property has been purchased. The show cause notice issued to the appellant is based on extraordinary rates entered in the records.
6. At the time of inspection of the said property, the appellant’s presence was not sought. Without verifying any records, the Tahsildar had been deputed for valuation and a conclusion regarding land value was arrived at unilaterally. The show cause notice says that the property was valued on square feet basis, but the property has been purchased for agricultural purpose and as such, the property cannot be valued on square feet basis.
7. The appellant is using the land for agricultural operation alone. As such, the property cannot be suddenly converted into a house site property. As per record relating to the property, the land has been classified as punja land/agricultural land. Tax also is being collected as if collected for agricultural land, but the registration department is classifying the land as house site.
8. Further, the appellant has contended that the average yield in his land was taken into consideration for assessment of tax by the revenue department considering it as agricultural land. The tax levied and paid by the appellant till now has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Tahsildar.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the said land purchased by the appellant is only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural operations on it. Even at the time of inspection made by the registration authorities, harvest of paddy was being done. As such, the said land cannot be treated as the land for house site and cannot be valued at Rs.3/- per square feet. It should be charged only on cent basis. In the said land, a collapsed well is there, for which the registration department has charged Rs.25,000/- and this is also erroneous. Further, the appellant states that the well does not come within the boundary of his land. This cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that as per guideline value, the first respondent/sub registrar is demanding deficit of stamp duty from the appellant as per Indian Stamp Act Section 47 (A). The appellant counsel challenges the guideline value before all the respondents. They are not competent persons to change the guideline value. It is the Government, who is responsible to effect changes in guideline value. All the three respondents have acted on the basis of the guideline value framed by the Government.
11. Considering the show cause notice and the second and third respondents findings on the appellant’s appeal and arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, the Court is of the view that the appellant cannot challenge the guideline value before the third respondent. If all the three respondents had functioned improperly without following the guideline value for the said land, the appellant can file appeal for irregularities of respondents. But, the appellant has challenged the guideline value of land entered in the register, which is available on the file of Sub-register office, Chithamoor. The appellant cannot therefore, challenge the Sub Registrar’s order demanding deficit stamp duty from him for the said land. If the guideline value framed by the Government is incorrect, the appellant has to approach some other forum and not before the respondents. The Court is of the view that if the respondents had committed any error in their proceedings on the basis of guideline value, the Court could have interfered, but the respondents have acted based on guideline value of land only. This cannot be interfered with by way of an appeal. Any how, the appellant has raised a point in the appeal that the third respondent failed to call for the records of the first respondent for confirming the maintenance of guideline register and ascertaining whether it has been updated and properly maintained before rejecting his appeal. The third respondent order disclosed that the appeal before him should have been filed within two months from the date of order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and as it was not done, the appeal not considered as it was filed after limitation period. Resultantly, the Court desires to give an opportunity to the appellant to express his view orally, with the relevant document, before the third respondent. The third respondent is hereby directed to call for the pending document No.36 of 2001 dated 02.05.2001 on the file of Chithamoor Sub-registrar Office, along with the guideline register and also verify the document No.916 of 2001 dated 27.12.2001 on the file of the Sub-registrar office, Chithamoor, which is relied on by the appellant for his case, and dispose the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal in C.M.A.No.690 of 2005 is disposed of.
JIKR
To
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Chithamoor Sub Registration Office,
Chithamoor, Maduranthagam Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chithamoor Division,
Maduranthagam,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Kamarajar Salai, Santhome,
Chennai