SUNDARAM MEDICAL FOUNDATION Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed as against the Order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the first respondent enhancing the land value, which is the subject matter of the sale deed dated 11.09.2002 presented for registration by the petitioner, from Rs.625/- per square feet to Rs.1,250/- per square feet and called upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.70,85,000/- and Rs.5,45,000/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty respectively within a period of sixty days.

(2.) The facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant is a charitable trust running a hospital in the name and style of Sundaram Medical Foundation. The appellant purchased the land measuring an extent of 2 acres situated in R.S. Nos. 229/2, 230/4, 230/7 and 230/8 in Koyambedu Village by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.09.2002 executed by one Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited and presented in the office of the third respondent, as the vendor was confronting financial difficulty. The said document was registered as document No. 3258 of 2002 dated 18.09.2002. The value of the property covered under the sale deed dated 11.09.2002 was indicated as Rs.4,68,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.536/- per square feet. After registration, the third respondent entertained a doubt regarding the value of the property indicated in the sale deed dated 11.09.2002 and therefore, he referred the matter to the second respondent for determination of the correct market value of the property, as contemplated under Section 47-A (2) of the Indian Stamps Act. The second respondent, after enquiry, passed an order dated 08.11.2002 determining the market value of the property at Rs.625/- per square feet. The appellant also remitted the deficit stamp duty assessed by the second respondent in the order dated 08.11.2002 on 13.11.2002. While so, to the shock and surprise of the appellant, a notice dated 21.01.2004 was sent by the first respondent, in which he referred to an earlier notice dated 02.10.2003 and stated as if the appellant has not given any reply to the earlier notice dated 02.10.2003 which was said to have been sent by invoking the suo moto revisional powers conferred on the first respondent under Section 47-A (6) of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. According to the appellant, they have not received any such notice dated 02.10.2003. Accordingly, the appellant sent a reply dated 11.02.2004 denying the receipt of notice dated 02.10.2003 inter alia sought for a personal hearing. However, the first respondent, without affording an opportunity of hearing, has passed the order dated 08.03.2006 enhancing the value of the land from Rs.625/- per square feet to Rs.1,250/- per square feet. The said order dated 08.03.2006 was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.M.A. No. 1951 of 2007 before this Court. By order dated 22.11.2007, this Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to re-consider the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Pursuant to such direction, the first respondent, without considering any of the points raised by the appellant has passed the order dated 06.10.2008, which is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale deed dated 11.09.2002 having executed by M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. In the said sale deed dated 11.09.2002, M/s. Rohini Holdings Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act was shown as a confirming party inasmuch as charge was created in respect of 2 acres of land mentioned in the B Schedule Property in favour of the confirming party and that is the reason why they were also made as a party to the sale deed dated 11.09.2002. Further, the appellant is a Public charitable institution and all the parties to the sale deed dated 11.09.2002 are independent parties and they have no relationship with each other.