K.Reeta v. Chairman Cum The Inspector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WRIT PETITION No.2055 of 2017 K.Reeta ... Petitioner vs.
1.
The Chairman cum The Inspector General of Registration, State Valuation Committee, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.
The Chairman cum the District Collector, District Valuation Committee, Salem, Salem District.
The Special Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, 3rd Floor, Collectorate, Salem.
The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2016 in the light of the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.75, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) dated 01.06.2010.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan For Respondents:
Mr.S.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her representation dated 20.12.2016 in the light of the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.75, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) dated 01.06.2010.
According to the petitioner, she purchased a land measuring an extent of 1.55 acres situated at S.No.324/3, Kannamuchi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, from one Mr.Devaraj, on 29.06.2016 through a registered Sale Deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Mettur and that the said land is used for cultivation of various short terms crops, viz. ragi, corn, etc. Though she paid the sale consideration and stamp duty and registered the Sale Deed before the SubRegistrar, Mettur, the latter refused to issue the registered document owing to additional stamp duty.
It is the case of the petitioner that stamp duty for agricultural land is being calculated in square feet rate instead of cent rate. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent called upon the petitioner for an enquiry on 16.12.2016 and the petitioner also appeared for the enquiry and submitted all the documents to establish that the land in question is an agricultural land. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's request, orally. In this regard, the petitioner immediately sent a representation dated 20.12.2016 to the respondents. It is her grievance that though she had paid a sum of Rs.54,270/- as stamp duty under the guideline valuation for agricultural land, the 3rd respondent has levied an additional sum of Rs.4,18,793/- as stamp duty.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that Section 47-A enquiry is pending and that no written order is passed by the 2nd respondent.
6.
In view of the above, this Court holds that the petitioner can agitate all the issues only before the authority under Section 47-A, i.e. the 3rd respondent herein and establish that the land in question is an agricultural land. Suffice it is to state that, if no written order is passed, the 3rd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner, after giving her sufficient opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as expeditiously as possible.
This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
1.
The Chairman cum The Inspector General of Registration, State Valuation Committee, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.
The Chairman cum the District Collector, District Valuation Committee, Salem, Salem District.
The Special Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, 3rd Floor, Collectorate, Salem.
The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
+1 cc to Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Advocate sr 5425 +1 cc to Government Pleader sr 5939 W.P.No.2055 of 2017 rsy(co) aa10/02/2017