IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.270 of 2004 J.Amaravathi .. Appellant Vs 1.The Revenue Controlling Authority -cum-Inspector General of Registration Chennai-4 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Coimbatore 3.The Sub-Registrar Pollachi .. Respondents Appeal filed under Section 47-A(10) of Stamp Act, 1899, to set aside the Order made in No.32309/N2/2002, dated 18.10.2003, on the file of the Principal Revenue Controlling Authority & Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. For appellant : Mr.Palani Selvaraj For respondents : Mrs.R.Revathy Government Advocate (C.S) J U D G M E N T The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order made in No.32309/N2/2002, dated 18.10.2003, passed by the first respondent, Principal Revenue Controlling Authority & Inspector General of Registration, Chennai- 4. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant purchased a vacant site, measuring an extent of 20 Cents, on 16.09.1999, under the sale deeds registered as document https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nos.3947 of 1999 and 3948 of 1999, on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi. The third respondent/Sub-Registrar, Pollachi, referred the said documents under Section 47A and fixed the rate at Rs.781/- per sq.ft., The second respondent/the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) called for objection and explanation from the appellant on 08.05.2000. After receipt of the notice from the second respondent, the appellant had submitted his explanation stating that the property, purchased by him, is situated at a distance of 1.5 Kms. away from Pollachi Town Bus stand. Further, the property is in a low-lying area and as such water stagnates during the rainy season. After considering the explanation submitted by the appellant, the second respondent determined the market value and fixed the rate at Rs.534/- per sq.ft., The said final order was passed by the second respondent under Section 47A(2) after a period of 25 months from the date of issuance of Form-I Notice. 3.The respondents filed a counter statement stating that the land value per sq.ft., was fixed at Rs.534/-. The same was fixed by the second respondent in his Order dated 17.01.2001. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector-General of Registration and has challenged the second respondent's Order. The first respondent, after enquiry, fixed the market value at Rs.500/- per sq.ft., in his Order dated 18.10.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the appeal. The respondent further stated that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, wherein the land value was fixed at Rs.500/- per sq.ft., in respect of the two properties under reference, as it was the prevailing market value at that time and not the guide line value. This was fixed after thorough consideration of the reports placed before the first respondent. 4.The first respondent reduced the stamp duty payable by the appellant from Rs.763.90 per sq.ft., to Rs.500/- per sq.ft., after well considering all the relevant records and after enquiry. The first respondent had recorded written depositions from the local residents of the property to the effect that the prevailing going- price of land was Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. Hence, the first respondent had fixed Rs.500/- per sq.ft., as true market value on the basis of recommendation given by the field inspection authority. As such, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the property is situated in a low-lying area, which is also a water catchment area. Further, the land is situated in a narrow lane and there is no proper approach road leading to the said land. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant is ready and willing to differ the property for sale at Rs.200/- per sq.ft., The learned counsel further pointed out that though the property is situated within the jurisdiction of Pollachi Town, it is located at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a remote place. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has produced the written arguments and submitted that a)2008 (3) CTC 614 – His Lordship Mr.Justice P.Jothimani in a batch of cases relating to Section 47A of Stamp Act has held that careful analysis of the Rules (Undervaluation) result in culmination of principles to be followed by the respondents in various stages: Stage I - ....................... Stage II - ...................... Stage III – After the reference under 47A the procedure has been elicited in detail in Rule 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. Procedure to pass final order has been dealt at page 635 & at page 636 at para 0 His Lordship held that the final order shall be passed with in three months from the date of first notice viz, Form I Notice. Stage IV – at bottom of Page 637 – (1) suo moto power of the Collector (2) – procedure for power is also contemplated in Rules 4 to 7 of the Rules. It is also relevant to note that in respect of the powers of the Collector to conduct enquiry u/s 47A(2) and also the time with in which the Registering authority should refer the matter for determination of market value to the Collector, nothing has been stipulated under the Act, either u/s 47A(1) or 47A(2), even though under the Rules as stated above, viz, Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7, the Collector is bound to give 21 days while asking for representation in Form I; the Collector after assessment of the provisional market value and ultimately, the Collector has to pass final order determining the market value within three months from the date of first notice, viz, notice in Form I. (3) – at page 638 – The Full Bench of this Court in Karmegam-v-The joint Sub-Registrar – 2007 (5) CTC 737, in the absence of any period with in which Registering authority can make reference to the Collector, considered as to whether the Courts can impose a period within which the registering authority should make a reference to the Collector u/s 47A(1), and relying upon the earliest Judgment on the subject rendered by Patanjali Sastry, CJ in Aswini Kumar Ghose -v- Arabinda Bose – AIR 1952 SC 369, and also the subsequent judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Southern Railways -v- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.Palaniappan – 2005 (2) CTC 721, has held that it is settled principle of law that the Court can not read anything into a statutory provision, which is plain and unambiguous and the primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used in the legislation itself and it cannot be as to what may be supposed, but it must be what has been said. Ultimately the Full Bench held as follows: The dictums laid down by the Supreme Court and the principles by this Court as stated above, would undisputabley indicate that the court is not competent to add or supplement anything to a statute and while interpreting the same, the intention of the legislature at the time of passing it, has to be collected, to render justice to the parties....... b)Judgment dt 20.07.2009 passed by his Lordship Mr.Justice S.Palanivelu on 20.07.2009 in C.M.A.220/2004 (C.M.P.718/2004) In this case since the final order has not been passed by the Collector-Stamps within the statutory period as contemplated in Rule 7, His Lordship by referring the above citation (2008) (3) CTC 614 held that the delay in passing final order in these matters are violative of Rule 7and to this reasoning the proceedings dt.07.01.2002 are vitiated. Finally, His Lordship held the in view of the above said observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed directing the respondent to release the document with out any endorsement. c)2007 (5) CTC 737 (FB) (Karmegam -v- The Joint Sub- Registrar, Madurai) d)2005(2) CTC 721 (DB) (Southern Railways -v- S.Palaniappan) e)1952 SC 369 (Aswini Kumar Ghose -v- Arabindo Ghose) (these Judgments referred to at page 631 by His Lordship Justice P.Jothimani reported 2008(3) CTC 641) 6.The learned counsel further argued that the first respondent has fixed the market value of the property in an arbitrary manner without application of mind. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the property had been inspected by the sub-ordinates of the first respondent on 12.01.2001 and it has been stated that the value https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the property fixed by the Sub-Registrar/third respondent was on the higher side. This aspect has not been properly considered by the second and third respondents in their respective orders. Further, the report reveals that the property is not located in a residential area and that the property is being used only as a Godown for storing iron. The report further reveals that the property is situated in a low-lying area and that there are no proper approach roads and that water stagnation occurs during rainy season. As such, the learned counsel has prayed to set aside the order passed by the first respondent and release the documents. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the property is situated within the Pollachi Town limits. Further, the first respondent has fixed the value of the property based on the Inspection Report submitted by the Department Field Officers. The first respondent had clearly examined the previous fixations of land value pertaining to lands in the same area and the fixation of Rs.534/- per sq.ft., for the property referred in document No.691 of 1991 and 398 of 2008 were accepted and the deficit stamp duties were collected thereon. The learned counsel further argued that the enquiry made with the locals residing in the area revealed that the prevailing market value, at the time of registration of the Sale Deed, was Rs.675/- per sq.ft., The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents have scrupulously followed the rules and procedures as laid down in law and have fixed the stamp duty only based on the records and facts found after physical verification and enquiry. It has been pointed that the respondents have gone about their duties correctly and with the interest of protecting the interest of the Government and its revenue. 8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, findings of the first and second respondents and after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, perusal of citations furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that (i) The property is situated at a place, which comes under the Pollachi Town Jurisdiction, but it is an admitted fact that there are no residential buildings in or around the said property. It is relevant to note that even though the property is situated in Pollachi Town, it does not have easy access to road, railway station, bus route, market, shops, amenities like hospitals, educational institutions etc., Further, the building is a Godown and is being used only for a storage of iron and as such the said property cannot be considered to be situated in a prime location in Pollachi Town. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) The report of the Subordinates of the first respondent dated 12.01.2001, reveals that the property is located 1 Km. away from the heart of Pollachi Town and that there are no residential buildings in that area. More over, the property is situated in a low-lying area and as such is prone to be water logged during rainy season. (iii) From a scrutiny of Inspection Report, it is seen that no particulars have been furnished regarding the structure, type, feature and age of the building. (iv) Initially, the third respondent referred the document to the second respondent for determination of market value of property. The second respondent had modified the property value at Rs.534/- per sq.ft., Subsequently, the first respondent had also reduced the property value to Rs.500/- per sq.ft., So, it is evident from this that the land value has been fixed in an arbitrary manner without appreciating the details contained in the inspection report. 9.This Court, after considering the above aspects listed above is of the opinion that the fixation of market value at Rs.500/- by the first respondent is also on the higher side. Hence, this Court holds that the market value of the said property in dispute is 60% of the market value fixed by the second respondent ie.60/100 X 500 = Rs.300/- per sq.ft., As such, the first respondent's Order No.32309/N2/2002, dated 18.10.2003 is set aside. 10.This Court after careful scrutiny of evidence on record and the citations furnished by the appellant's counsel in support his case, is of the view that the market price fixed by this Court as Rs.300/- per sq.ft., is reasonable and fair. This Court hereby directs the respondents to collect the deficit stamp duty from the appellant, as fixed by this Court, and release the documents to the appellant. 11.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Order made in No.32309/N2/2002, dated 18.10.2003, passed the Principal Revenue Controlling Authority & https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar krk To 1.The Revenue Controlling Authority -cum-Inspector General of Registration Chennai-4 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Coimbatore 3.The Sub-Registrar Pollachi. 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.Palani Selvaraj, Advocate Sr 26134 KJ(CO) km/6.5. C.M.A.No.270 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/