1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)Nos.364 to 366 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos. 1 of 2011 M.Sheriffa Begum .. Appellant in CMA No.364/2011 M.Mohammed Ghani .. Appellant in CMA Nos.364 & 365/2011 Vs. The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. .. Respondent in all CMAs. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 47 (A) (10) and Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Stamp Act, against the orders dated 20.06.2008 passed in g.K.Nos.67549/N4/2004; 67550/N4/2004 and 67551/N4/2004 by the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravichandran (all CMAs) For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl.Govt.Pleader (all CMAs.) COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the orders dated 20.06.2008 passed in g.K.Nos.67549/N4/2004; 67550/N4/2004 and 67551/N4 /2004 by the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority /Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai, who has been arrayed as respondent herein. 2. Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, it would be more useful to narrate the following admitted facts. The appellants are the husband and wife and both of them have purchased house and house sites which situate in Survey Nos.8/7 and 1/3, Sathanur Village, erstwhile Tiruchirapalli Taluk and Tiruchiraplli District on the basis of Rs.125/- per square feet on 21.01.2004 under three sale deeds and the same have been registered on 28.01.2004. The sale deeds which stand in the name of the appellants have been scrutinised by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli and ultimately recommended to fix Rs.250/- per square feet for the purpose of collecting deficit registration fee. The recommendation made by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli has been accepted by the present respondent and ultimately passed the impugned orders dated 20.06.2008, wherein it has been directed to pay deficit Court fee on the basis of Rs.250/- per square feet and also on the basis of the value fixed for buildings. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the appellants have purchased the properties in dispute which situate in Survey Nos.8/7 and 1/3, Sathanur Village on the basis of market value https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and that too for Rs.125/- per square feet. But the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli without considering the documents produced on the side of the appellants has erroneously recommended to the effect that the lands in question are worth of Rs.250/- per square feet and on that basis the respondent has erroneously passed the impugned orders and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the properties in dispute are situate in Sathanur Village within the limit of Tiruchirapalli Corporation and the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli has made a local visit and personally seen the juxtaposition of the survey numbers in question and ultimately submitted his recommendation to the effect that per square feet would fetch Rs.250/- by way of market value and the same has been rightly accepted by the respondent and due to that the orders in question have been passed and therefore, the orders passed by the respondent are perfectly correct and the same do not require any interference. 5. As narrated earlier, the appellants have purchased the properties in dispute which are comprised in Survey Nos.8/7 and 1/3 in Sathanur Village. In the sale deeds which stand in the names of the appellants it has been clearly mentioned that one square feet of land is worth of Rs.125/-. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli has fixed Rs.250/- per square feet only on the basis of the facilities available in and around the properties in dispute and the value fixed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli has been accepted by the respondent. In fact, this Court has perused all the impugned orders dated 20.06.2008, wherein it has not been specifically stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli has scrutinised contemporaneous documents for the purpose of fixing market value of the properties in dispute. Since the market value of the properties in dispute can be fixed only on the basis of market value fixed in contemporaneous documents, the approach made by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tiruchirapalli as well as the impugned orders dated 20.06.2008 passed by the respondent are totally erroneous and the impugned orders dated 20.06.2008 are liable to be set aside and the matters are liable to be remitted to the file of the respondent. 6. In fine, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed without cost and the orders dated 20.06.2008 passed in g.K.Nos.67549/N4/2004; 67550/N4 /2004 and 67551/N4/2004 by the respondent are set aside and all the matters are remitted to the file of the respondent. The respondent is directed to fix market value of the properties in dispute on the basis of the market value fixed in contemporaneous documents. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s S.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR.No.33368 mj C.M.A(MD)Nos.364 to 366 of 2011 27.09.2011 TR : 09.11.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/