A.S.Villavan Kothai v. The Inspector General of Registration
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Apr 2010
- Bench
- C S KARNAN
Held
The Court held that the stamp duty demand was unlawful and the first respondent had erred in confirming the lower authority’s order.
Outcome
Allowed
As such,the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 s. 47A(1)
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the land situated on a prime location adjacent to Velli – Tiruppurroad. Further, there is a change that the land could be converted into a residential site. So, the District Registrar fixed the value of…
- Para 77. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the first respondent and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the sale deed of the appellant discloses that the schedule mentioned property…
- Para 99. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed and the order in appeal No.55826/N2/2005, on the file of the first respondent/the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600028, is set aside and this Court directs the respondents to release the sale deed bearing document No.1976…
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The appellant purchased an agricultural puja land and was demanded a high stamp duty by the District Revenue Officer. The appellant appealed to the Inspector General of Registration, whose order was upheld by the first respondent. The appellant then filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside that order.
Issues
- Whether the stamp duty demand was lawful and whether the first respondent erred in confirming the lower authority’s order.
Holding
The Court held that the stamp duty demand was unlawful and the first respondent had erred in confirming the lower authority’s order.
Reasoning
The Court found that the order of the second respondent was mechanical and did not consider market value, and that the land was classified as agricultural puja land, making the high stamp duty demand unjustifiable.
Practical significance
Practitioners should ensure that stamp duty assessments are based on proper valuation and that appeals against such assessments are timely and well‑substantiated.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.04.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNANC.M.A.No.46 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008A.S.Villavan Kothai .. Appellant/AppellantVs1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration Chennai-600 0282.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of the District Collector Coimbatore3.The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-registrar Andhiyur, Erode District .. Respondents/RespondentsAppeal filed under Section 47A(1) of Indian Stamp Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2000, to call for the records pertaining to Appeal No.55826/N2/2005 on the file of the first respondent and set aside the order dated 21.05.2007 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.55826/N2/05 and direct the respondents to release the Sale Deed bearing document No.1976/2002,S.R.O.Andhiyur without claiming any further stamp duty. For appellant : Mr.M.RamadossFor respondents : Mr.V.Srikanth, A.G.P. (C.S) J U D G M E N TThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.55826/N2/2005, dated 21.05.2007, on the file of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, to set aside the saidOrder.
The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant submits that he had purchased a property being agricultural poonjai land, measuring an extent of 1 Acre 41 Cents, comprised in Survey No.636/3, situated at Ennamangalam Village, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bhavani Talum, Erode District, within the sub-registration district of Andhiyur. The said property was purchased by the appellant for atotal sale consideration of Rs.42,500/- on 28.01.2002. After the registration formalities are over, the third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Andhiyur had referred the document to the secondrespondent/the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) under the guise of under valuation. At the request of the appellant, the Tahsildar, from the office of the second respondent had inspected the property and thereafter the second respondent has passed an order in his proceedings Mu.Pa.No.4013/2002(B) demanding a sum of Rs.68,698/-towards deficit stamp duty. The order of the second respondent is amechanical one and that too in a pre-printed format and the same is done without analysing the factors, which determine the market value.
Immediately upon receiving the order of the second respondent, the appellant had preferred an appeal to the InspectorGeneral of Registration-cum-Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, the first respondent herein on 20.09.2005 explaining the details pertaining to the purchase and the exorbitant and unlawful demand made by the second respondent to some deficit in stamp in the absence of materials for such demand. But, without considering ofit, the first respondent has rejected the appeal prepared by the appellant and had passed an order confirming the order of the second respondent.
Aggreived by the order passed by the first respondent, the appellant preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed by the first respondent in appeal No.55826/N2/2005,dated 21.05.2007.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the first respondent has erred in dismissing the appeal. Further, the learned counsel contended that the land is a puccaagricultural punja lands and that there was a crop during the inspection by the authorities concerned. The said land is used only for cultivation as agricultural land. The first respondent confirming the order of the lower authority only on the basis that there would be chances of the said land being used as housing site in future, which is highly unjustifiable by law. The learned counsel vehemently argued that as per revenue records, the land is classified as a agricultural punja land. The guide line value cannot determine the market value of the property conveyed under an instrument. The value of another piece of land, which was determined as housing site cannot be equated to that of the lands now conveyed under the document in question.
The revenue records namely Adangal Extracts, Kist receipts and lease deed and also from the reports given by the registering authorities. The learned counsel further argued that the lands are not situated near any domestic area. The first respondent Inspector General of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration also confirmed the land value on square feet basis, which is erroneous, since the land being agricultural land and not for housing or residential. There is also a Will in the said land intended for irrigation purpose. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the first respondent. In support of his contentions, he has cited a Judgment made in 2004 (1) CTC 187,Madras High Court, The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) v. Chemicalsand Plastics Ltd., the relevant head notes of which are as follows: "Indian Stamp Act, 1860, Section 47-A – Paymentof Stamp duty on market value of land – Whethercan be demanded on the basis of future use of land – Whether this section can be invoked in such cases for making reference as to stamp duty payable – Agricultural lands purchased for being used for industrial purposes for storing industrial effluents – Whether stamp duty can be demanded considering future usage of land as industrial lands and house sites – Whetherfailure to pay stamp duty on basis of future use would attract provisions of this Sections –Agricultural lands were purchased under various deed of conveyance and stamp duty paid for market value as declared by executants –Registering authority satisfied himself that stamp duty has been paid as per guideline value, completed registering and released sale deeds –Subsequently registering authority made reference on the basis that lands are going tobe used for industrial purposes and they have tobe valued as house sites – Special DeputyCollector (Stamps) assessed market value on that basis and purchaser was directed to pay deficit stamp duty – Purchaser preferred appeal and Appellate Authority allowed appeal filed by purchaser and set aside order – RegisteringAuthority filed revision petition to High Court– Revision was held not maintainable as original authority is not person aggrieved – Revision was also dismissed as devoid of merits holding that market value of land has to be valued as on date of deed of conveyance and does not depend upon future or intended user of land by purchaser. "
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the land situated on a prime location adjacent to Velli – Tiruppurroad. Further, there is a change that the land could be converted into a residential site. So, the District Registrar fixed the value of the said land for Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre. The learned counsel further argued that in the same survey number per square feet land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is valued at Rs.10/-, as such, the first respondent decided the market value per Acre at Rs.4,36,000/-. The learned counsel further argued that after verification of the records, the spot inspection made by the authorities and adjacent land sale deed, it is only then the first respondent fixed the value of the land. The learned counsel further argued that as per Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual, the land value was accordingly fixed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the first respondent and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the sale deed of the appellant discloses that the schedule mentioned property is an agricultural land and surrounded on all four sides by agricultural lands. There is no dispute that the situated well herein is only for irrigation purposes. Further, it is an admitted fact that at the time of inspection there was crops like sugar cane, banana and tapicao existing. This clearly proves that the land is solely for agricultural purpose. The appellant also filed adangalextract, this also reveals that the land is an agricultural. But, the first respondent's order stating that the land will be converted into a housing site in future and accordingly the first respondent fixed the market value at Rs.4,36,000/- per acre, which is erroneous. Hence, this Court sets aside the order. Further, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel in 2004 (1) CTC 187, MadrasHigh Court, The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) v. Chemicals and Plastics Ltd., is squarely applicable.
Operative part
Hence, this Court sets aside the order passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.55826/N2/2005, dated 21.05.2007. As such, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed and the order in appeal No.55826/N2/2005, on the file of the first respondent/the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600028, is set aside and this Court directs the respondents to release the sale deed bearing document No.1976 of 2002, on the file of thesub-registrar office of Andhiyur, forthwith, without claiming any further stamp duty from the appellant. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ krk To1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration Chennai-600 0282.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of the District Collector Coimbatore3.The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-registrar Andhiyur, Erode District+1cc to Mr.M.Ramdass, Advocate Sr 26025+1cc to Spl. Govt. Pleader Sr 25813RSY(CO)km/18.5. C.M.A.No.46 of 2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that the stamp duty demand was unlawful and the first respondent had erred in confirming the lower authority’s order.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the stamp duty demand was lawful and whether the first respondent erred in confirming the lower authority’s order.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — s. 47A(1); Tamil Nadu Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 20 Apr 2010. The bench was C S KARNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.