{"id":171789,"date":"2007-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007"},"modified":"2018-04-01T14:57:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T09:27:37","slug":"n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     Dated:  20.01.2007\n                              \n                            Coram\n                              \n           The Honourable Mr. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM\n                              \n         Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1337 of 2006\n                  and C.M.P.No.5799 of 2006\n                              \n\n\nN.S.Murugan                            .... Appellant\n\n                            -Vs.-\n                              \n\n1. The Chief Controlling Revenue\n    Authority-cum-Inspector\n    General of Registration, Registration Act, Chennai.\n\n2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)\n    Room No.9, III Floor, District Collectorate,\n    Korampallam, Tuticorin\n\n3. The Joint Sub Registrar-II\n    Tuticorin                          .... Respondents\n\n\n\nCivil  Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 47-A(10) of Indian\nStamps   Act  against  Proceedings  No.7232\/U1\/2005,   dated\n20.01.2006  on  the  file of the Chief  Controlling  Revenue\nAuthority and Inspector General of Registration, Madras  and\nagainst the Proceedings No.1940 of 2000 dated 29.10.2001  on\nthe file of the Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tuticorin.\n\n     For Appellant       : Mr. K.R.Thamizhmani\n \n     For  Respondents    : Mr. M.Rangarajulu,  Government\n\t\t\t   Advocate.\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The above appeal has been filed against the order dated<\/p>\n
20.01.2006 passed by the first respondent in exercise of his<\/p>\n
suo  motu  power  of revision under Section 47-A(6)  of  the<\/p>\n
Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)<\/p>\n
fixing  the market value at the rate of Rs.160\/- per  square<\/p>\n
feet for an extent of 1 acre and 15.126 cents purchased  and<\/p>\n
registered by the appellant vide Document No.691\/2000  dated<\/p>\n
07.07.2000  and  demanding stamp duty payable  on  the  said<\/p>\n
value.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2. The brief facts of the case are set out below:-<\/p>\n
      The appellant purchased an extent of 1 acre and 15.126<\/p>\n
cents  of  land  comprised  in  T.S.Nos.4137\/P,  4136\/1A(P),<\/p>\n
4136\/5A-1  part  and 4138\/1 of Polanaickenpettai,  Tuticorin<\/p>\n
for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000\/- under a sale<\/p>\n
deed  dated  07.07.2000  and presented  the  sale  deed  for<\/p>\n
registration before the third respondent herein.  The  third<\/p>\n
respondent  referred the sale deed under Section 47-A(1)  of<\/p>\n
the  Act  to  the second respondent.  The second  respondent<\/p>\n
issued  notices  in Form-I and Form-II dated 16.10.2000  and<\/p>\n
22.11.2000 calling upon the appellant to appear for  enquiry<\/p>\n
and site inspection on 27.11.2000 and to produce evidence if<\/p>\n
any   in  support  of  his  claim.   The  appellant  by  his<\/p>\n
representations dated 07.02.2001 and 16.07.2001 sent to  the<\/p>\n
first  and second respondents respectively claimed that  the<\/p>\n
market value paid at Rs.295\/- per square feet of land  dealt<\/p>\n
with under Document No.548\/2000 should not be adopted as the<\/p>\n
basis  for  fixing  the  market value  of  the  document  in<\/p>\n
question.   The  second  respondent  after  notice  to   the<\/p>\n
appellant  inspected  the suit property  on  29.10.2001  and<\/p>\n
after proper enquiry by his order dated 15.11.2001 fixed the<\/p>\n
market  value  of the property at Rs.31.50 per square  feet.<\/p>\n
The  said  value fixed by the second respondent was accepted<\/p>\n
by  the  appellant  and deficient stamp duty  was  paid  and<\/p>\n
pursuant to that the document was released.<\/p>\n
      3.  The first respondent on receipt of intimation from<\/p>\n
the  District Registrar, Tuticorin on 29.11.2002  about  the<\/p>\n
payment  of  deficiency of stamp duty and releasing  of  the<\/p>\n
documents  invoked  his  suo motu power  of  revision  under<\/p>\n
Section 47-A(6) of the Act, as he felt that the valuation at<\/p>\n
Rs.31.50  per  square  feet by the second  respondent  would<\/p>\n
result  in loss of Revenue to the Government.  A show  cause<\/p>\n
notice  dated 19.11.2003 calling upon the appellant to  show<\/p>\n
cause  as  to why the value of the land purchased under  the<\/p>\n
document  in  question should not be fixed at  Rs.295\/-  per<\/p>\n
square feet and the deficient stamp duty collected from  the<\/p>\n
appellant.  In the show cause notice it was brought  to  the<\/p>\n
notice  of the appellant that as on 01.04.1999, as  per  the<\/p>\n
guideline     register,    the    guideline    value     for<\/p>\n
Polanaickenpettai District, where the land  in  question  is<\/p>\n
situated  was  Rs.143\/- per square feet and as per  document<\/p>\n
No.560\/1999 the value per square feet was Rs.293.29,  as  on<\/p>\n
01.04.2000 the guideline value per square feet was Rs.293.30<\/p>\n
and as per document No.548\/2000 the market value was Rs.295\/-<\/p>\n
per  square  feet.   The  appellant  sent  his  reply  dated<\/p>\n
16.07.2001 stating that he purchased the land at Rs.6.27 per<\/p>\n
square feet and the land covered by document No.548\/2000  is<\/p>\n
located  in the main road and the said land is a house  site<\/p>\n
wherein  a  house  is  located  and  the  said  property  is<\/p>\n
surrounded by residential houses and the purchaser under the<\/p>\n
document  has boosted the value of the property to get  loan<\/p>\n
from   Life  Insurance  Corporation  and  hence  the   value<\/p>\n
mentioned in the said document cannot be taken as the  basis<\/p>\n
for fixing the value for the land covered by the document in<\/p>\n
question.   The appellant further stated that the  site  and<\/p>\n
the building bearing Door No.111 J\/1 situated in Town Survey<\/p>\n
No.4137\/1-A 3A-B has been sold at Rs.22.44 per square  feet,<\/p>\n
the land purchased by the appellant is provided with 20 feet<\/p>\n
wide  pathway  only and it is located in an  interior  place<\/p>\n
surrounded by an oil mill and a grave yard and as  such  the<\/p>\n
land is not suitable to be used for residential purposes but<\/p>\n
the   same   can  be  used  only  as  an  industrial   site.<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  the  first  respondent issued  various  notices<\/p>\n
fixing  the  various  dates  for  personal  hearings.    The<\/p>\n
appellant sent his representations containing the very  same<\/p>\n
contentions as stated in his reply to the show cause notice.<\/p>\n
The   appellant  appeared  for  the  personal  hearing   and<\/p>\n
reiterated  the  same contentions put forth in  his  various<\/p>\n
representations.  The first respondent by  his  order  dated<\/p>\n
20.01.2006 taking into consideration the submissions made by<\/p>\n
the  appellant, the report submitted by the DIG Registration<\/p>\n
and  considering  the  fact that the  land  in  question  is<\/p>\n
located about 300 feet north and 600 feet east from the  new<\/p>\n
bus  stand  on  the Tuticorin-Ettayapuram Road,  the  market<\/p>\n
value  of the land covered by Document No.372\/2000 had  been<\/p>\n
fixed  at Rs.205.50 per square feet, under a reference  made<\/p>\n
under  Section  47-A  of  the  Act  and  also  taking   into<\/p>\n
consideration  that the land in question is situated  in  an<\/p>\n
industrial area and by accepting the recommendation  of  the<\/p>\n
DIG  Registration  fixed the market value  at  Rs.160\/-  per<\/p>\n
square feet.  Being aggrieved by that, the above appeal  has<\/p>\n
been filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Heard Mr. K.R.Thamizhmani learned counsel for  the<\/p>\n
appellant  and Mr.M.Rangarajulu learned Government  Advocate<\/p>\n
for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The  learned  counsel for the appellant  made  the<\/p>\n
following submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  The  respondents have not followed the principles<\/p>\n
specified  under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp  (Prevention<\/p>\n
of  Undervaluation  of Instrument) Rules  1968  (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as “the Rules”) in determining the market  value<\/p>\n
of the land in question.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  The first respondent ought not to have taken into<\/p>\n
consideration   the   report  of  the  District   Registrar,<\/p>\n
Tuticorin,  dated  12.08.2003 without  furnishing  the  copy<\/p>\n
thereof to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      (c) The first respondent ought to have relied upon the<\/p>\n
Inspection  Report  of  the  Deputy  Inspector  General   of<\/p>\n
Registration  as  the  inspection by  DIG  Registration  was<\/p>\n
conducted  without notice to the appellant and the  copy  of<\/p>\n
the report was also not furnished to the appellant.<\/p>\n
     (d) The order of the first respondent does not disclose<\/p>\n
the   basis  on  which  the  Deputy  Inspector  General   of<\/p>\n
Registration  has  fixed the value at  Rs.160\/-  per  square<\/p>\n
feet.\n<\/p>\n
While  elaborating his submissions the learned  counsel  for<\/p>\n
the appellant submitted that in the notices dated 12.07.2005<\/p>\n
and 24.08.2005 issued by the first respondent for fixing the<\/p>\n
date  of  personal  hearings, the first respondent  has  not<\/p>\n
referred  to  the  report  of  the  DIG  Registration  dated<\/p>\n
12.04.2005.   The learned counsel for the appellant  further<\/p>\n
submitted  that the first respondent has not classified  the<\/p>\n
usage  of the land as contemplated in Rule 5(a)(ix)  of  the<\/p>\n
Rules.  The learned counsel further submitted that only  the<\/p>\n
potential  value of the land namely as a house site  can  be<\/p>\n
taken  into  account and even if it is taken so, 1\/3rd  area<\/p>\n
should  be  deducted for providing roads and 10%  should  be<\/p>\n
deducted towards public purpose but the first respondent has<\/p>\n
not  done so.  According to the learned counsel, under  Rule<\/p>\n
11-A(c)  of  the  Rules  the  Deputy  Inspector  General  of<\/p>\n
Registration ought to have issued a notice to the  appellant<\/p>\n
before  inspecting  the  property but  since  admittedly  no<\/p>\n
notice  was issued, this report should not have been  relied<\/p>\n
upon  by  the  first  respondent  and  in  support  of   his<\/p>\n
contentions  the  learned counsel  relied  upon  a  decision<\/p>\n
reported in 1999 (1) M.L.J. 286 (R.Nagarajan Vs. The Revenue<\/p>\n
Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Kamarajar District).<\/p>\n
      6.  Per contra the learned Government Advocate for the<\/p>\n
respondents submitted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  document in question itself the property  has<\/p>\n
been  described as “kid epyk;” bounded on the east and  west<\/p>\n
by compound walls.  In all his representations the appellant<\/p>\n
has  submitted  that the property can be  used  only  as  an<\/p>\n
industrial site and not fit for residential purposes and the<\/p>\n
said contention of the appellant was found to be correct  by<\/p>\n
the  DIG  Registration  on  his  inspection  and  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  has accepted the report of the DIG  Registration<\/p>\n
and  has  valued  the  property  in  question  only  as   an<\/p>\n
industrial site.  Therefore, the learned Government Advocate<\/p>\n
submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant  that  deduction towards  provision  of  Road  and<\/p>\n
public  purpose  etc., should have been made  by  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  is  fallacious  as the  property  has  not  been<\/p>\n
classified  as  a residential site.  The learned  Government<\/p>\n
Advocate submitted that the failure on the part of  the  DIG<\/p>\n
Registration to issue notice before inspecting the  property<\/p>\n
has  not caused any prejudice to the appellant as already  a<\/p>\n
notice  of  inspection was issued by the  second  respondent<\/p>\n
when  he  inspected  the  property.  Similarly  the  learned<\/p>\n
Government Advocate submitted that the non-furnishing of the<\/p>\n
copy of the DIG’s report to the appellant has not caused any<\/p>\n
prejudice to him as he has perused the report at the time of<\/p>\n
personal  hearing.   He further submitted  that  though  the<\/p>\n
perusal of the report by the appellant has been specifically<\/p>\n
mentioned  in  the  counter affidavit  filed  by  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent, the same has not been controverted by filing any<\/p>\n
reply  affidavit and it has not been established as  to  how<\/p>\n
the  appellant has been prejudiced by the non-issuing of the<\/p>\n
notice  or by the non-furnishing of the copy of the  report.<\/p>\n
He  further submitted that the contents of the DIG’s  report<\/p>\n
except the value suggested therein has been accepted by  the<\/p>\n
appellant  in  his  various  representations.   He   further<\/p>\n
submitted  that Section 47-A(8) of the Act only contemplates<\/p>\n
that  a reasonable opportunity should alone be given and  in<\/p>\n
this  case ample opportunity has been given to the appellant<\/p>\n
to  put forth his case.  He further submitted that the first<\/p>\n
respondent  has considered all the aspects and has  actually<\/p>\n
accepted  the  appellant’s classification  of  the  property<\/p>\n
namely as an industrial site and therefore the contention of<\/p>\n
the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  has not classified the usage of the  land  under<\/p>\n
Rule  5(a)(ix) of the Rules is not sustainable.  The learned<\/p>\n
Government Advocate further submitted that a perusal of  the<\/p>\n
original  records  discloses that the first  respondent  had<\/p>\n
called  for the details relating to the value of  the  lands<\/p>\n
sold  in  the neighbourhood and also the details of  various<\/p>\n
proceedings relating to the references made under Section 47-<\/p>\n
A  of  the  Act  and  has also taken into consideration  the<\/p>\n
percentage  of  increase in the market value spread  over  a<\/p>\n
period  of five years prior to 2000.  The Learned Government<\/p>\n
Advocate  relied  upon  the decision reported  in  2000  (1)<\/p>\n
C.T.C.  374 (S.C.) (Duncans Industries Limited Vs. State  of<\/p>\n
Uttar  Pradesh  and others) and 2001 (3) C.T.C.  176  (S.C.)<\/p>\n
(State  of  Uttar Pradesh Vs. Harendra Arora) in support  of<\/p>\n
his  contention that unless actual prejudice has been caused<\/p>\n
to  the appellant, the mere non-furnishing of the report  of<\/p>\n
the DIG Registration cannot be a ground for interfering with<\/p>\n
the order of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on<\/p>\n
either  side, the materials on record and the original  file<\/p>\n
that has been produced by the learned Government Advocate as<\/p>\n
directed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8. The various provisions contained in Section 47-A of<\/p>\n
the  Act provided for the procedure to be followed as to how<\/p>\n
the  instruments  of conveyance etc., which are  undervalued<\/p>\n
have  been dealt with.  In this case, we are concerned  with<\/p>\n
Section 47-A (6) of the Act, which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
         “47-A (6) :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The  Chief Controlling Revenue Authority  may,<\/p>\n
         suo  motu,  call  for  and  examine  an  order<\/p>\n
         passed  under  sub-section (2) or  sub-section<\/p>\n
         (3)  and if such order is prejudicial  to  the<\/p>\n
         interests   of  revenue,  he  may  make   such<\/p>\n
         inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made  and,<\/p>\n
         subject  to  the provisions of this  Act,  may<\/p>\n
         initiate proceedings to revise, modify or  set<\/p>\n
         aside  such  order  and may  pass  such  order<\/p>\n
         thereon as he thinks fit”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  explanation to Section 47-A is also relevant and  which<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “Explanation. –  For the purpose of this  Act,<\/p>\n
         market   value  of  any  property   shall   be<\/p>\n
         estimated  to  be  the  price  which,  in  the<\/p>\n
         opinion   of  the  Collector  or   the   Chief<\/p>\n
         Controlling  Revenue  Authority  or  the  High<\/p>\n
         Court,  as  the  case may  be,  such  property<\/p>\n
         would have fetched or would fetch, if sold  in<\/p>\n
         the  open  market on the date of execution  of<\/p>\n
         the  instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift,<\/p>\n
         release of benami right or settlement.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
While  elaborating the scope of explanation to Section  47-A<\/p>\n
of  the  Act, a learned Judge of this Court in the  decision<\/p>\n
reported in A.I.R. 1982 Madras 138 (Collector of Nilgiris at<\/p>\n
Ootacamund  Vs.  M\/s.  Mahavir Planations  Pvt.  Ltd.,)  has<\/p>\n
observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “13.  …. What the conception of open  market<\/p>\n
         in  the  Explanation to S. 47-A of  the  Stamp<\/p>\n
         Act  conveys  is that the market value  should<\/p>\n
         be  determined  on the basis of conditions  of<\/p>\n
         equilibrium   and   not  on   the   basis   of<\/p>\n
         speculative   trends,  where  by   reason   of<\/p>\n
         exercise  of  economic power on  the  part  of<\/p>\n
         influential  interests in  real  estate  which<\/p>\n
         wield  enormous  bargaining authority,  prices<\/p>\n
         of  individual properties are either rigged up<\/p>\n
         or  depressed,  tending to distort  the  price<\/p>\n
         structure.   Open market is, in my  judgement,<\/p>\n
         an  objective  standard which lays  down  that<\/p>\n
         the   market  value  to  be  adopted  by   the<\/p>\n
         Collector  and  the  market  value  which  the<\/p>\n
         parties   are  required  to  adopt  in   their<\/p>\n
         instruments  must be a fair  market  value  in<\/p>\n
         the  sense that there are no economic shackles<\/p>\n
         or  inhibitions of any kind which prevent  the<\/p>\n
         price  level  from finding its  level.   Thus,<\/p>\n
         the  conception of open market rules  out,  at<\/p>\n
         one  end, fancy prices and, at the other  end,<\/p>\n
         distress sales.  Economic equilibrium  is  the<\/p>\n
         hall-mark of open market”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the light of the above said observations the instant case<\/p>\n
has  to  be  considered and the fair  market  value  of  the<\/p>\n
property in question should be fixed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  As  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
appellant  it is no doubt true that no notice was issued  to<\/p>\n
the  appellant by the DIG Registration before inspecting the<\/p>\n
property  in  question.   But as rightly  contended  by  the<\/p>\n
learned  Government Advocate the appellant has not  disputed<\/p>\n
the  contents of the report of the Deputy Inspector  General<\/p>\n
of Registration except the value suggested by him.  Pursuant<\/p>\n
to  his inspection the DIG Registration has pointed out that<\/p>\n
the  property in question can be used only as an  industrial<\/p>\n
site  which actually lends support to the contention of  the<\/p>\n
appellant.  It was the consistent case of the appellant that<\/p>\n
the  property  is fit to be used only as an industrial  site<\/p>\n
and not fit to be used for residential purposes.  Therefore,<\/p>\n
in  the  considered view of this Court, the non-issuance  of<\/p>\n
notice to the appellant has not caused any prejudice to  the<\/p>\n
appellant.   Though  this Court, as seen from  the  decision<\/p>\n
reported in 1999 (1) M.L.J. 286 (referred to supra) has held<\/p>\n
that the issuance of notice for inspection is mandatory  and<\/p>\n
on the ground of non-issuance of notice, this Court had set-<\/p>\n
aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the<\/p>\n
Revenue  Divisional  Officer to  exercise  his  power  under<\/p>\n
Section 47-A of the Act, this Court is of the view that,  as<\/p>\n
pointed  out  above,  no prejudice has been  caused  to  the<\/p>\n
appellant, it is not necessary to set-aside the order of the<\/p>\n
first respondent on this ground.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10. The Apex Court, while considering the fact of non-<\/p>\n
furnishing  of report of the enquiry officer to a delinquent<\/p>\n
employee  in the light of the provisions contained in  Civil<\/p>\n
Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1930,  in<\/p>\n
the  decision  reported in 2001 (3) C.T.C. 176 (referred  to<\/p>\n
supra) has observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “23.  Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
         decisions  and  different  provisions  of  law<\/p>\n
         noticed,  we hold that provision in Rule  55-A<\/p>\n
         of  the  rules for furnishing copy of  enquiry<\/p>\n
         report  is  procedural one and of a  mandatory<\/p>\n
         character, but even then a delinquent  has  to<\/p>\n
         show  that he has been prejudiced by its  non-<\/p>\n
         observance and consequently the law laid  down<\/p>\n
         by  the  Constitution Bench  in  the  case  of<\/p>\n
         ECIL, to the effect that an order passed in  a<\/p>\n
         disciplinary proceeding cannot ipso  facto  be<\/p>\n
         quashed  merely because a copy of the  enquiry<\/p>\n
         report   has   not  been  furnished   to   the<\/p>\n
         delinquent officer, but he is obliged to  show<\/p>\n
         that  by  non-furnishing of such a  report  he<\/p>\n
         has  been  prejudiced,  would  apply  even  to<\/p>\n
         cases   where   there   is   requirement    of<\/p>\n
         furnishing  copy of enquiry report  under  the<\/p>\n
         statutory provisions and\/or service rules”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.  In  the decision reported in 2000 (1) C.T.C.  374<\/p>\n
(referred  to  supra)  while  considering  the  question  of<\/p>\n
valuation  under Section 47-A of the Act the Apex Court  has<\/p>\n
observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “15. The question of valuation is basically a<\/p>\n
         question  of fact and this court is  normally<\/p>\n
         reluctant  to interfere with the  finding  on<\/p>\n
         such  a  question of fact if it is  based  on<\/p>\n
         relevant   material  on  record.   The   main<\/p>\n
         objection of the appellant is regard  to  the<\/p>\n
         valuation  arrived at by the  authorities  is<\/p>\n
         that the Collector originally constituted  an<\/p>\n
         Enquiry Committee consisting of the Assistant<\/p>\n
         Inspector  General  (Registration),   General<\/p>\n
         Manager,  District  Industries  Centre,  Sub-<\/p>\n
         Registrar  and  the  Tahsildar.   After   the<\/p>\n
         report was submitted by the Sub-Committee for<\/p>\n
         the   reasons  of  its  own,  the   Collector<\/p>\n
         reconstituted the said Enquiry  Committee  by<\/p>\n
         substituting  Additional City  Magistrate  in<\/p>\n
         place of Sub-Registrar.  This substitution of<\/p>\n
         the   Enquiry  Committee,  according  to  the<\/p>\n
         appellant, is without authority of  law.   We<\/p>\n
         are   unable   to  accept  this   contention,<\/p>\n
         Constitution of an Enquiry Committee  by  the<\/p>\n
         Collector  is for the purpose of finding  out<\/p>\n
         the   true   market  value  of  the  property<\/p>\n
         conveyed  under the Deed.  In  this  process,<\/p>\n
         the  Collector has every authority in law  to<\/p>\n
         take  assistance  from  such  source  as   is<\/p>\n
         available,   even  if  it   is   amounts   to<\/p>\n
         constituting or reconstituting more than  one<\/p>\n
         Committee.  That apart, the appellant has not<\/p>\n
         been able to establish any prejudice that  is<\/p>\n
         caused to it by reconstitution of the Expert-<\/p>\n
         Enquiry Committee”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. Basing reliance upon the above said observations of<\/p>\n
the  Apex  Court, the Learned Government Advocate  submitted<\/p>\n
that  in  the instant case the appellant has not established<\/p>\n
that  any  prejudice  has been caused to  him  by  the  non-<\/p>\n
furnishing  of  the  report  of the  DIG  Registration.   He<\/p>\n
further  contended  that  though it  has  been  specifically<\/p>\n
stated by the first respondent in his counter affidavit that<\/p>\n
the  appellant had actually perused the report  of  the  DIG<\/p>\n
Registration  at the time of personal hearing the  same  has<\/p>\n
not  been  controverted by filing any  reply  affidavit  and<\/p>\n
therefore it is established that the appellant had  actually<\/p>\n
perused  the report of the DIG Registration.  Therefore,  if<\/p>\n
really the appellant wanted to raise any objections for  the<\/p>\n
said  report,  he could have very well done  so  before  the<\/p>\n
first  respondent in the course of personal hearing.  Having<\/p>\n
not raised any objections it is not open to the appellant to<\/p>\n
contend  that the order of the first respondent is vitiated.<\/p>\n
The  Learned Government Advocate further submitted that  the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel for the appellant is unable  to  show  even<\/p>\n
before this Court as to how the appellant was prejudiced  by<\/p>\n
the  non-furnishing of the report.  The said  contention  of<\/p>\n
the learned Government Advocate merits acceptance.<\/p>\n
      13.  As  pointed out above, the first  respondent  has<\/p>\n
treated the property covered by the document in question  as<\/p>\n
an  industrial site and thereby has accepted the  contention<\/p>\n
of the appellant and therefore the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant that the first respondent has  not<\/p>\n
classified  the usage of the property as contemplated  under<\/p>\n
Rule 5(a)(ix) of the Rules is liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n
      14. The only remaining question to be considered is as<\/p>\n
to  whether the fixation of the market value of the property<\/p>\n
at  Rs.160\/- per square feet is based on acceptable material<\/p>\n
and  whether it reflects the fair price.  A perusal  of  the<\/p>\n
original records produced by the learned Government Advocate<\/p>\n
shows  that  the  DIG Registration has furnished  statistics<\/p>\n
relating  to  the  fixation  of  value  in  respect  of  the<\/p>\n
properties  situated  in  the  same  locality.    From   the<\/p>\n
statistics  furnished, it is seen that  the  Special  Deputy<\/p>\n
Collector  (Stamps) Tuticorin had fixed Rs.94.30 per  square<\/p>\n
feet  for  21  documents registered in  the  year  1999  and<\/p>\n
Rs.205.50  for  document No.372 of  2000.   Considering  the<\/p>\n
disadvantages  pertaining to the  property  in  question  as<\/p>\n
evidenced from the report of the DIG Registration the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  had  not  taken  into  consideration  the  value<\/p>\n
mentioned  in Document No.548\/2000 and has also  not  relied<\/p>\n
upon the value of Rs.205.50 per square feet as fixed for the<\/p>\n
property covered by Document No.372 of 2000.  It is not  the<\/p>\n
case  of the appellant himself that property in question  is<\/p>\n
an  agricultural land and as the property has been described<\/p>\n
as  “kid”  which will mean that the property is  a  building<\/p>\n
site the first respondent on the materials on record came to<\/p>\n
the   conclusion  that  the  properties  is  not   fit   for<\/p>\n
residential  purpose  but  it is  fit  only  for  industrial<\/p>\n
purpose  accepted  the classification  of  the  property  as<\/p>\n
industrial site as claimed by the appellant and based on the<\/p>\n
sales   statistics  and  the  recommendation  of   the   DIG<\/p>\n
Registration has arrived at the market value of the property<\/p>\n
in question at Rs.160\/- per square feet.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.  It  is  pertinent to point out  that  though  the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel for the appellant contended that the  value<\/p>\n
fixed  at  Rs.160\/- per square feet for the land in question<\/p>\n
is on the higher side, no efforts whatsoever have been taken<\/p>\n
by  the appellant to produce any contemporaneous document of<\/p>\n
conveyance  relating to any land situated near the  land  in<\/p>\n
question   and   which   has  got   similar   advantages   \/<\/p>\n
disadvantages.  Even during the course of personal  hearing,<\/p>\n
the   appellant  could  have  produced  such  documents  and<\/p>\n
convinced the first respondent to fix lesser value  for  the<\/p>\n
land  in  question.  Even before this Court, no such  effort<\/p>\n
had  been taken.  Therefore, this Court is of the considered<\/p>\n
view  that  the first respondent has determined  the  market<\/p>\n
value of the land in question on the basis of conditions  of<\/p>\n
equilibrium and not on the basis of speculative  trends  and<\/p>\n
the  first respondent has also taken into consideration  the<\/p>\n
sales statistics relating to the neighbouring lands and  the<\/p>\n
ratio  of growth of the value of the lands and therefore  no<\/p>\n
interference  is called for.  Therefore, it cannot  be  said<\/p>\n
that  the  value arrived at by the first respondent  is  not<\/p>\n
based  on any acceptable materials.  Hence, this Court finds<\/p>\n
absolutely  no reason to interfere with the value  fixed  by<\/p>\n
the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and<\/p>\n
the  same is dismissed.  However, there will be no order  as<\/p>\n
to costs.  Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.<\/p>\n
srk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector
\n   General of Registration, Registration Act, Chennai.<\/p>\n
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
\n   Room No.9, III Floor, District Collectorate,
\n   Korampallam, Tuticorin<\/p>\n
3. The Joint Sub Registrar-II, Tuticorin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.01.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1337 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.5799 of 2006 N.S.Murugan …. Appellant -Vs.- 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Registration Act, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3806,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\",\"name\":\"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007"},"wordCount":3806,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007","name":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T09:27:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-murugan-vs-the-chief-controlling-revenue-on-20-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.S.Murugan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue on 20 January, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}