K.C.K.Prabhakar v. The Collector of Chennai, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai – 600 001 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.03.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.9161 of 1999K.C.K.Prabhakar.. Petitioner -Vs-1. The Collector of Chennai, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai – 600 001.2. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to A2-77152/95 dated 12.05.1999 on the file of the firstrespondent and quash the said order passed on 12.05.1999.For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalpa ReddyFor Respondents : Mr.Senthil Kumar Government AdvocateO R D E RThis writ petition is directed against the order of the DistrictCollector dated 12.05.1999, by which a direction has been issued to thepetitioner to pay the Court fee of Rs.2,28,962/- in the Reserve BankAccount in respect of immovable property situated at No.15, Second CrossStreet, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024, which isthe subject matter of O.P.No.772 of 1995 before this Court and toproduce receipt, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will beinitiated. 2. The above said property belonged to the mother of the petitionerMrs.Kuchubhotla Kamalamba, who died at Chennai on 20.06.1995 and shealso left her last will and testament dated 08.02.1992, bequeathing theabove said property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filedO.P.No.772 of 1995 for grant of Letters of Administration. This Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by an order dated 12.02.1996, granted Letters of Administration infavour of the petitioner. A copy of the order was issued to thepetitioner on 08.04.1996. The petitioner has filed accounts on17.03.1997, in compliance with the grant of Letters of Administration.When the grant of Letters of Administration was sought for, thevaluation of the property was resorted to by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam to issue notice on 03.09.1998. The petitioner has repliedon 16.09.1998, stating that the Letters of Administration was ordered on12.02.1996 and it was issued on 08.04.1996 and accounts were filed on17.03.1997, and by virtue of proviso to Section 59(5) of the Tamil NaduCourt Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, the Collector can move anapplication for amendment of valuation in this Court within six monthsfrom the date of exhibition of inventory and in the present case,inventory was made on 17.03.1997 and the notice of the Tahsildar forenquiry regarding the valuation is on 03.09.1998, which is beyond theperiod of six months and therefore it is not permissible. Further thefirst respondent has determined the valuation of Court fee asRs.2,28,964/- and directed to pay the said amount as per the impugnedorder. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that it isagainst the proviso to Section 59(5), since the valuation is stated tobe made after six months from the date of inventory filed before thisCourt.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner apart from relying uponSection 59(5) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955has also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgmentreported in 2006 (4) TLNJ 281 (Civil) has construed the said provisionand held that if the Collector fails to move the Court for the purposeof amendment within a period of six months as per the Act, losses hisright to revalue the property for the purpose of Court fee. 4. Heard Mr.P.Kalpa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearingfor the respondents.5. The facts are not in dispute, it is seen that this Court hasgranted Letters of Administration to the petitioner on 12.02.1996 andpursuant to the direction for Letters of Administration, inventory hasbeen filed on 17.03.1997 i.e., as per the requirements of Section 317 ofthe Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu CourtFees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 makes it clear that the Collector whowould receive the application for valuation as per Section 55 (2) has toexamine either himself or through his Subordinate Officer as to thecorrectness of valuation and furnish the correct value to the person whomake such application. If the Collector is of the opinion that anyproperty has been undervalued he is entitled to require the attendanceof the applicant who has made the application for Letters ofAdministration / Probate and after enquiry if he is still of the opinionthat the value is underestimated, the Collector may direct the applicant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to amend the valuation and if the application of Letters ofAdministration / Probate is pending in Court he has to file a copy ofthe amended valuation. In any case, when Letters of Administration /Probate was granted and the applicant amends the valuation to thesatisfaction of the Collector and if the Collector finds that a less feehas been paid than was payable according to the true value of theestate, he shall proceed under Section 61(4) of the Act. In the eventof any payment of excess Court fee, the same has to be refunded. If theapplicant files for amending the valuation to the satisfaction of theCollector, it is open to the Collector to move the Court before whichthe application for Probate / Letters of Administration was made to holdenquiry into the true value of the property. Such an application is tobe made within a period of six months from the date of exhibition of theinventory required by Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.Section 59 reads as follows:“Section 59: Inquiry by the Collector:- (1) The Collector to whom a copy of the application andthe valuation has been sent under Section 55, sub-section (2),shall examine the same and may make or cause to be made by anyofficer subordinate to him such inquiry if any, as he thinksfit as to the correctness of the valuation or, where a partonly of the property is situated in his district, of thevaluation of that part, and may require the Collector of anyother district in which any part of the property is situated tofurnish him with the correct valuation thereof.(2) Any Collector required under sub-section (1) tofurnish the correct valuation of any property shall comply withthe requisition after making or causing to be made by anyofficer subordinate to him such inquiry, if any, as he thinksfit.(3) If the Collector is of opinion that the applicant hasunder-estimated the value of the property of the deceased, hemay, if he thinks fit, require the attendance of the applicant,either in person or by his agent, and take evidence and inquireinto the matter in such manner as he may think fit, and if heis still of opinion that the value of the property has beenunder-estimated, may require the applicant to amend thevaluation, and, if the application for probate or letters ofadministration is pending in Court, to file a copy of theamended valuation in such Court.(4) If, in any such case, the probate or letters ofadministration has to have been granted and the applicantamends the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector andthe Collector finds that a less fee has been paid than waspayable according to the true value of the estate, he shallproceed under Section 61, sub-Section (4); but if a higher feehas been paid than was payable according to the true value ofthe estate, the excess fee shall be refunded to the applicant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (5) If the applicant does not amend the valuation to thesatisfaction of the Collector, the Collector may move the Courtbefore which the applicant for probate or letters ofadministration was made to hold an inquiry into the true valueof the property;Provided that no such motion shall be made after theexpiration of six months from the date of the exhibition of theinventory required by Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 (Central Act XXXIX of 1925).”6. While construing the said provision from Section 55 to 59 and 61of the Act, a Division Bench headed by Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam (as hethen was) in O.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Personal Assistant (G) to Collector ofMadras, Statutory Authority under The Tamil Nadu Court Fees & SuitsValuation Act, 1955 and another reported in 2006 (4) TLNJ 281 (Civil)has clearly held that as per Sub-section 5 of Section 59, it prescribesperiod of limitation of six months from the date of exhibition ofinventory, within which the Collector has to move the Court and has alsoheld that the said proviso is mandatory and ultimately set aside theimpugned proceedings of the Personal Assistant (G) to the Collector withthe following observations:“8......”8.The assertion made by the Collector in theorder dated 27.12.1993 that Sec.59(5) of the Act is notmandatory is without any merit. The Collector has clearlymisconstrued the scope of the power conferred on the Collector.9. The proceedings for grant of probate or letters ofadministration is initiated in the Court. Inventory is to beexhibited in Court. The Collector’s role is only to assist theCourt. If the determination made by the Collector is acceptedby the applicant for probate and the valuation of the items areamended, it is only then the Collector can exercise powersunder Sec.61(4). If the valuation is not amended in the mannerdecided by the Collector, the Collector must necessarily applyto the Court for the determination of the true value of theproperties."9. On going through the provisions of the Act, we are inagreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge.As rightly pointed out, if the determination made by theCollector is accepted by the applicant for Probate and thevaluation of the items is amended, only then the Collector canexercise his powers under Section 61(4) of the TNCF & SV Act.On the other hand, if the valuation is not amended in themanner as determined by the Collector, undoubtedly, theCollector must move the Court, where the Probate or Letters ofAdministration was granted for the determination of the truevalue of the properties. Such recourse has not been followedby the respondents and as rightly pointed out, the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings are not only liable to be quashed, but therespondents are also not permitted to move this Court at thisjuncture. The above relevant aspects have not been consideredby the learned Judge and committed an error in dismissing thewrit petition.10. We intend to point out that it is the duty of theDistrict Collector to file an application before the OriginalSide of this Court for directing the party to pay court fee,when such party disputes the difference in valuation beingadverted to by the Collector. It is brought to our notice thatin recent years, there seems to be latitude on the part of theCollectorate in filing such application before this Court,resulting in loss of revenue to the State. The DistrictCollector, Chennai is directed to act diligently in future bytaking serious note of the aspect adverted to above.Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings of thePersonal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras dated18.05.1992 are quashed and the order of the learned singleJudge dated 14.11.2000 made in W.P.No.22130 of 1993, is setaside. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.”7. Applying the provisions of the Act as well as the Judgment asreferred to above, it is clear that in this case the inventory was madeon 17.03.1997, the Tahsildar has issued notice for valuation on behalfof the first respondent District Collector on 03.09.1998 which isclearly beyond the period of limitation of six months prescribed underproviso to Section 59(5) of the Act and therefore the impugned order ofthe first respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly set asideand the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkkTo1. The Collector of Chennai, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai – 600 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.14945.1 cc To Mr.P.Kalpa Reddy, Advocate, SR.14291.W.P.No.9161 of 1999 TS(CO)RVL 31.03.2008