E.PARVATHI Vs. TAMIL NADU CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the impugned order dtd. 8/1/2015 made in Pa.Mu.No.30287/N2/2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling Officer and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, confirming the order dtd. 7/6/2013 made in Mu.Pa.No.518/09 passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, demanding the deficit stamp duty from the appellant.

(3.) Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land, therefore, Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 dealing with the principles for determination of market value of agricultural land should have been applied, whereas the first respondent, wrongly resorting to Rule 5(b) and (c) dealing with the principles for determination of market value of house sites and buildings, has determined the market value of the agricultural land. Explaining further, Mr.Manokaran argued that the revenue documents and other relevant factors would clinchingly point out that the land in question belonging to the appellant is only an agricultural land, because it was a cultivable land even on the date of registration of the same. While so, the decision taken by the Special Deputy Collector treating the property as commercial area and wrongly quantifying the stamp duty on square feet basis is meaningless and unacceptable. Continuing his arguments, Mr.Manokaran stated that the registering authority, namely, the Sub Registrar has accepted the true value set forth in the instrument and accordingly registered the document. Before accepting the said document for registration, no queries were raised about the value of the land, therefore, in the absence of any material on record to prove the fact that the Sub Registrar doubted the stamp value set forth in the instrument, it cannot be decided that the matter should be referred under Sec. 47-A. Moreover, the registering authority, while referring the matter under Sec. 47-A, should have released the original document with an endorsement therein that a reference under Sec. 47-A is pending in respect of the said instrument, which has not been done. Again assailing the impugned order passed by the first respondent, it was argued that the first respondent has erred in accepting the reasoning given by the second respondent, as it is contrary to the provisional assessment order dtd. 28/6/2012, because the second respondent quantified the deficit stamp duty even without any application of mind, inasmuch as neither the impugned order nor the provisional assessment order had indicated any subjective satisfaction for arriving at the value of Rs.15.00 lakhs per acre. Moreover, nowhere in the impugned order the objection raised by the appellant has been considered. Besides, the first respondent has wrongly accepted the bald and laconic order passed by the second respondent. Now the grievance of the appellant is that the land in question covered in S.F.Nos.11/1 and 11/ 3 having an extent of 2 acres, 8 cents situate in Lakkampatti Village was purchased on 13/3/2009. To prove the fact that it is an agricultural land, adangal extract for the fasli 1420 dtd. 6/1/2012 has been filed, to bring the case of the appellant under Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. When the revenue record, namely, the adangal extract for the fasli 1420 dtd. 6/1/2012 clearly mentions that the land in question covered in S.F.Nos.11/1 and 11/3 having an extent of 2 acres, 8 cents situate in Lakkampatti Village has been an agricultural and cultivable land on the date of purchase on 13/3/2009 and also continued to be an agricultural land even till the year 2012, Rule 5(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 for the purpose of determining the stamp duty should be followed, he pleaded.