D.Mohanapriya v. Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY D.Mohanapriya ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Inspector General of Registration Office of Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 028.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The District Registrar, Administration, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.
4.The Tahsildar, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.
5.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st, 3rd and 5th
respondents and his officials to fix the guideline value of the petitioner agricultural land situated in S.No.671/1A, measuring an extent of 2.67 acres in Sirumugai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District based on agricultural land value instead of street valuation. For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Thomas Saran Singh For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st, 3rd and 5th respondents and his officials to fix the guideline value of the petitioner agricultural land situated in S.No.671/1A, measuring an extent of 2.67 acres in Sirumugai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District based on agricultural land value instead of street valuation.
2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the landed property situated in S.No.671/1A of Sirumugai Village, Mettuplayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring an extent of 2.67 acres and she is cultivating banana in the said land. When the petitioner intended to sell the aforesaid land, the fifth respondent wrongly fixed the guideline value by stating that the above land is included in the street valuation instead of agricultural land valuation. Therefore, the petitioner made a representations dated 11.03.2025 and 17.03.2025, before the respondents 5 & 2, respectively to change the guideline value as an agricultural land value. However, till date the said representations were not considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the subject land is an agricultural land and the petitioner is utilizing the same for the purpose of cultivating banana. As long as the petitioner is utilizing the subject land for the agricultural purpose, the question of applying street value will not come into picture. In such view of the matter, the respondents are supposed to
fix the guideline value by treating the said land as an agricultural land, however, without taking into consideration, blindfoldedly, the fifth respondent has fixed the value of the said land by taking street value is not proper.
5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have already initiated the process of fixing the guideline value for the subject property, based on the representation made by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks twelve
(12) weeks time to complete the said exercise.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Since the respondents have already initiated the process of fixing the guideline value for the subject property, this Court directs the respondents to complete the said exercise within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that while fixing the guideline value, the authorities concerned are directed to keep the following aspects on mind:
(i) When the purchaser is intend to use the land for the purpose of agricultural activities, then the guideline value has to be fixed based on agricultural land valuation and it should not be looked from the perspective of the street valuation;
(ii) If any land, adjacent to the subject land is plotted and sold as a housing plot, the authorities should not apply the same yardstick to the agricultural land;
(iii) When the State intends to promote the agricultural activity by stopping the conversion of agricultural land into plots and if the state themselves fix the value for the agricultural land, as it applicable to the plots, that means that the state itself proscribing the agricultural activities. No doubt, if the agricultural lands are valued and fixed in such a way as it is applicable for plots or by street value, it clearly proscribes the agricultural activity and the question of promoting the agricultural land would not come into picture at all.
(iv) While registering the agricultural property, the authorities concerned can take a statement from the parties/purchaser, whether they intend to utilize the said land for the purpose of agricultural activities for the next three years or any other period fixed by them or they are going
to convert the said land for other purposes. In such case, the authorities can apply the difference in rate, if they so thinks fit. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
10.11.2025 vm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To 1.Inspector General of Registration Office of Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 028.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The District Registrar, Administration, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.
4.The Tahsildar, Mettuplayam Taluk, Coimbatore District.
5.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
vm 10.11.2025