S.KANAGAMANI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) Mrs.S.Kanagamani has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned proceedings dated 16.3.2017 passed in Letter No.28983/U1/13 by the Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Revenue Controlling Officer, Chennai.

(3.) Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant purchased an extent of 2 acres, 22 1/2 cents in Survey No.268/4 of Nagarpalayam Village falling within the Sub Registrar's Office, Mallasamudram, she paid the stamp duty at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and the said sale deed was registered in Document No.1712 of 2007. Since they are all agricultural lands, the first respondent has wrongly treated the subject matter of the land as house site and fixed the land value at Rs.27/- per sq.ft., without conducting any enquiry. On the date of registration, the appellant paid the requisite stamp duty that was accepted by the Sub Registrar. Mr.N.Manokaran also submitted that when two sale deeds were registered, one bearing Document No.1902 of 2007 relating to the same survey number and another sale deed bearing Document No.1712 of 2007 relating to the very same survey number before the very same Sub Registrar's Office, an order was passed on 27.9.2007 and the sale deed in respect of Document No.1902 of 2007 was released. In respect of another sale deed bearing Document No.1712 of 2007 alone, ironically, a doubt has been raised with regard to the value. When a reference was made under Section 47- A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for determining the value of the said property, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem, in his order dated 27.9.2007, fixed the value for the said property at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. The appellant, accepting the value fixed for the two documents at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, paid the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, after receiving the same, the respondents released both the documents to the appellant. Surprisingly, after a huge delay of 5 years, 9 months, on the footing that the Accountant General, Chennai citing audit report No.AG(C&RA) ISR IV/Regn./20-26/11-12/94 dated 8.6.2011 informed the respondents that there was a loss of income to the Government because of the aforesaid value determination, directed the respondents to take appropriate action under Section 47- A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act , on the basis of the said audit report, a notice was issued to the appellant on 26.6.2013 by the Inspector General of Registration to submit reasons as to why the deficit stamp duty and registration should not be collected from the appellant at the rate of Rs.27/- per sq.ft. On receipt of the same, the appellant submitted her reply dated 29.7.2013 stating that the power of suo motu action under Section 47- A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act is barred by time. Ignoring the same, the impugned order has been passed.