K INDIRA Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY/PRINCIPAL REVENUE CONTROLLER OF TAMIL NADU-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant prefers this appeal with the grievance that she was not given an opportunity to present his case before the first respondent, who passed the impugned order. In fact, the authority, who heard the matter has not passed the order, but, only his successor passed the order, on the basis of records.

(2.) According to the appellant, she purchased the property at the rate of Rs.442/- per sq.ft., and paid the stamp duty. The second respondent suo motu issued a notice under Rule 4 in Form-I and, after hearing objections, finally redetermined the market value at Rs.940/- per sq.ft., with interest at 2% per month. The appellant remitted the amount and got the documents released. However, the first respondent, exercising his power under Section 47-A (6) of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, issued a notice for suo-motu revision of market value, on 201.2008. After obtaining report from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, dated 29.08.2008, the first respondent redetermined the market value of the property at Rs.1458/- per sq.ft., by way of the impugned order, dated 23.11.2009. The said order is challenged in this appeal, on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and fixation of future value.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, would submit that the appellant was given ample opportunity to present her case and she had appeared before the authority during personal hearing; the property is situated in a very important locality, having high commercial value; and, therefore, the value of the property has been redetermined by the first respondent at Rs.1458/- per sq.ft., as per the then prevailing guideline value.