S MANONMANI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal has been preferred by the purchaser of the property to an extent of 43 cents of agricultural land in S. No.489/2, Kumarapalayam Village, Coimbatore for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- on 5.7.2001.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Appellant, he has presented the documents before the Sub-Registrar and has paid a sum of Rs.27,300/- as Stamp duty. Though the Sub-Registrar has registered the document, he detained the same, as he has found that the market value of the land was undervalued. He referred the documents to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, made an inspection on 22.1.2003 and forwarded his report dated 25.2.2003. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore fixed the market value at Rs.284/- per sq.ft. and passed the order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The main reason given by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) is that the disputed land is far away i.e., 3 kms. from Perur Main Road and though the lands are agricultural lands they have the potential value of house sites. Therefore, he found that the Guideline value of the adjacent village Sundakkamuthur is applicable, which is Rs.390.40. However, he reduced the same to Rs.284/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the order, an Appeal was preferred before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. By its order dated 18.3.2004, the Inspector General of Registration relied on the report of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and found that though the lands in dispute are agricultural lands, it has potential value of house sites and fixed the market value at Rs.284/-. Against which, the purchaser of the land has preferred the present Appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Thyrocare Technologies Limited v. THE Sub-Registrar, Madukkarai, Coimbatore and others, 2011 (4) LW 86, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the same point in a similar case and has held that the demand made by the Respondents for higher Stamp duty cannot be sustained.