Mangalam and another vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur

Thanikkachalam, J.—The petitioner in both the revisions arc wife and husband, who are the owners of the land mentioned in the respective

revision petition. In S. No. 201/2 Melavell Village, Thanjavur Division an extent of 1.25 and 1 acre was sold under Document No. 628/ 87 and

487/87 on 23-6-1987 to A. Mangalam and K.R. Annamalai respectively for Rs. 75,000/- and 60,000/- by Yuvaraj Jesudoss Daniel Jothi Kumar.

The basic register maintained by the Sub Registrar shows that the value of the land is Rs. 15/- per sq.ft. Hence the Sub Registrar decided that the

deficit stamp fee of Rs. 9,810/- and Rs. 7200/- is payable by the respective purchasers. On appeal ,the Revenue Divisional Officer determined the

value of the land in question at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. This was confirmed on further appeal by the Sub Court, Thanjavur. It is against that order the

present revisions arc preferred by the respective purchasers. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revisions submitted that

the land in question was purchased for Rs. 75,000 /- and Rs. 60,000/- on 23-6-1987. It is a punja land. It is not used as house site. After

inspection, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that the land In question is a punja land and it was convened into house sites. Rs. 6 per sq.ft. was

fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the basis of the sale instance which took place relating to house sites. Adjacent lands were sold at the

rate of Rs. 3/- to Rs. 9/- per sq.ft. but they are house sites. The higher guidelines came into force only from 1-3-1987. Therefore, the value as

stated in the higher guidelines should not be followed. The distance between S. No. 201/2 and S. No. 201/6 has not been ascertained. Reliance

was placed upon the decision reported in Padmavathi S.P. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and two others (1993 WLR 470). Therefore, it was

submitted that the Sub Court, Thanjavur, was not correct in determining the value of the land at Rs. 6/- per sq.ft.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader while supporting the order passed by the Sub Court, Thanjore contended that as per the

guidelines prevalent in G.O. No. 1387 and the value prevalent in the adjoining area, the Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the value at Rs. 6/-per

sq.ft. Therefore, it was submitted that Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. is a reasonable one and no further reduction is called for.

I have heard the rival submissions. The sale deeds were executed on 24-2-1987 and 20-2-1987, and registered on 16-6-1987 and the extent

of land sold was 1.25 acre and 1 acre respectively for Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- under the Document No. 628/87 and 487/87. The

petitioners valued the land at Rs. 1.50 per sq.ft. According to the petitioners, it is a punja land. There is no evidence on record to show that it was

converted into house sites. The land in S. No. 201/6, was sold for Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. The land in question is stated to be far away from the

township. The distance between S. No. 201/2 and 202/6 is not known. By issuing the Government Order dated 1-3-1987 higher guideline was

directed to be adopted. At this distance of time, we do not know what is the nature of the land as on today. Considering the value prevalent in

respect of the lands relating to S. No. 201/6 fresh guidelines were issued on 1-3-1987 and from the fact that the land which was sold was

originally a punja land, this Court is of the opinion that the value of the land in question can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. Accordingly,

the value of the land, which is the subject matter of the sale deed dated 24-2-1987 and 20-2-1987 is determined at Rs. 3/- per sq.ft. The

authorities below are directed to calculate the stamp duty payable on the basis of the above rate and levy stamp duty thereon. Accordingly, the

value determined by the Sub Court, Thanjavur, will stand modified and the revisions filed by the land owners are allowed in part. No costs. The

learned Government Pleader submitted that the concerned Revenue Official has not inspected the spot to ascertain the nature of the land and the

value prevalent in that area. Therefore, the Government Pleader was handicapped in making his submission in the matter of determining the value of

the land. Therefore, in future the Revenue Department is directed to inspect the land whenever a dispute arose on the question of valuation.