M/S.T. Eswari v. M/S.The Special Collector(Stam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.M.A.No.1443 of 2004 and C.M.P.Nos.7704 of 2004 & 482 of 2008 T.Eswari ... Appellant Vs.
1. The Special Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.3, Salem - 636 001.
3. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum- Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
(R3 impleaded as 3rd respondent vide order of this Court dated 15.11.2017 made in C.M.P.No.19517 of 2017) ... Respondents PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A
(10) of the Indian Stamps Act read with Rule 9(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, against the order dated 31.12.2003 in letter No.27447/No.3/2003 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai.
For Appellant :
Mr.P.Tamizh Kumaran For Respondents :
Ms.M.Jayasree Government Advocate
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the order passed by the third respondent, the appellant is before this Court.
2. The appellant had purchased agricultural lands and presented the documents before the second respondent for registration. The second respondent referred the same to the first respondent for determination of market value, as per Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. After inspection, the first respondent fixed the market value at Rs.505/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred an appeal to the third respondent. The third respondent has confirmed the decision taken by the first respondent, against which, the appellant preferred the above appeal.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that the land, which is sought to be conveyed is an agricultural land. The first respondent, on inspection, found that it continued to be an agricultural land, but situate within the heart of the city. Even though the property is an agricultural land, considering the commercial establishments and house-sites around the property, the value of the property was fixed at Rs.1,52,60,000/- per acre. The third respondent also, while considering the appeal, has observed that even though the property, which is sought to be conveyed is maintained as an agricultural land, considering the developments around the property, he fixed the market value as recommended by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration.
4. It is well settled that the determination of the market value of the property shall be on the basis of the nature and classification of the property on the date of registration. In the instant case, the property, which is sought to be conveyed is admittedly an agricultural property, as found by the respondents. In such circumstances, it should have been valued as an agricultural land. On the other hand, the market value is fixed based on the future usage and future development.
5. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the determination of market value of the property on the basis of future development, in the case of SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (STAMPS), CHENNAI COLLECTORATE, SINGARAVELAR MALIGAI, CHENNAI, VS. THAJUNNISA AND OTHERS [2015 (6) MLJ 129] and held as under:- " 10. It is to be borne in mind that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration's Report dated 22.03.2002 does not indicate any conclusion which was arrived at to the effect that the Respondents / Petitioners lands in question were not agricultural lands. Just because the lands in question are having the potential of being converted as house sites in
future, the authorities in this regard cannot allow their imagination to run riot or to indulge in assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures etc., in the considered opinion of this Court."
6. Further, it is well settled that as per Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate authority, to conduct site inspection and after gathering all the details and after arriving at subjective satisfaction, to fix the market value. But, in the instant case, the third respondent has not conducted site inspection. Therefore, the order passed by the third respondent is vitiated for noncompliance of the mandatory requirement.
7. In similar circumstances, this Court in S.SANTHI VS. THE CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI AND TWO OTHERS [C.M.A.NO.2820 OF 2012 DATED 05.06.2015] has held as follows:- "17. The Authority conferred with certain functions under a statute has to carry out the same on its own such function and cannot delegate the same to another in the absence any contemplation for such delegation under the Act. In the present case, under rule 4 (3) (c) and rule 11-A of the rules, 2nd respondent-Collector and the first respondent Inspector General of Registration respectively, have to inspect the property and there is no enabling provision under the rules or under the Act to delegate such power.
Therefore, inspections by other officers at the behest of the respondents vitiate the entire proceedings.
18. The failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to pass a final order within 3 months from the date of Form-I notice as mandated under rule 7 of the rules vitiates the entire proceedings. Form - I notice was issued on 17.05.2005 and the final order was passed on 05.12.2006, after 1 1/2 years, i.e., after 3 months and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated.
19. The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent purely based on inspection reports of the District
Registrar / Deputy Thasildar, who are not authorised under the Act and hence the said inspection reports are not materials collected by the authorities, entitled under the Act. Hence, the proceedings of the second respondent and first respondent are vitiated."
Therefore, the delegation of powers to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem and the District Registrar, Salem and the decision taken on the basis of their report is patently illegal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to declare that the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 31.12.2003 is illegal and unsustainable in law.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the third respondent in Letter No.27447/No.3/2003, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration in compliance with Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and the third respondent is directed to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that while passing order, the third respondent shall also adhere to the principles of natural justice during the time of inspection as well as at the time of personal hearing.
9. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asi/tk To
1. The Special Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.3, Salem - 636 001.
3. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum- Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
+1cc to Mr.P.Tamizh Kumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.86496 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.87114 C.M.A.NO.1443 OF 2004 RJ(CO) GSP(25/10/2018)