THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Vs. SUB REGISTRAR MADUKKARAI COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the order dated 15.12.2004 in Appeal Nos.19188/2/2004 and 19186/2/2004 on the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

(2.) M/s.Thyrocare Technologies Limited, the Appellant in both the appeals, by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.9.2003 (Doc.No.1712/2003) purchased 11.94 acres of dry land in SF.No.138/1B, 139/2A, in Pichathur Village, Coimbatore Taluk for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and land and building comprised in SF.No.138/2A by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.9.2003 (Doc.No.1713/2003) for an amount of Rs.43,00,000/- and paid the stamp duty as applicable to agricultural land. The Registering Authority, on requisition, issued notices dated 7.11.2003 in Form-I in terms of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, determining the stamp duty payable thereon on the basis of assessing the property as house sites. The Registering Authority demanded the deficit stamp duty on the enhanced market value in respect of the said two registered sale deeds. The Appellant sent their objections in response to the Form-I notice stating that the lands comprised in the sale deeds are agricultural lands and the same has been assessed by the Registering Authority as house sites. The Appellant further stated that the documents have been properly valued and appropriate stamp duty has been paid and requested the authority to refer the matter to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps).

(3.) INDISPUTABLY, agricultural lands were purchased by the Appellant under two sale deeds and stamp duty has been paid as agricultural lands as per the market value as declared by the executant. The Registering Authority made a reference on the basis that the lands have to be valued as house sites. However, the Respondents 2 and 3 have held that the lands in question are agricultural lands. The 3rd Respondent herein, while holding that the lands are agricultural lands, has not given any reason whatsoever for determining the market value at the rate suggested by him in his order dated 15.12.2004. It is seen that the 3rd Respondent had been influenced by the opinion of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration in determining the market value. With regard to the building in survey number 138/2A, the 3rd Respondent has placed reliance on the opinion of his subordinate viz. the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, who had in turn recommended to accept the value fixed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps). The opinion of a subordinate authority cannot be the basis for the adjudicating Authority to decide the appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that such opinion of the subordinate authority is not based on correct assessment, as the order passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) indicated that the building was found in S.No.138/1B, whereas the building is situated in SF.No.138/2A.