AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant against the orders made by the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
The appellant purchased lands through six sale deeds and the sale deeds were registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sayalkudi, Tuticorin District. After registering those sale deeds, the third respondent herein referred to the second respondent u/s 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to fix the market value of the lands sold in the above said six sale deeds. In those six sale deeds, the lands were sold at Rs. 15,000/- per acre and the stamp duty was made at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
On reference, the second respondent passed an order dated 24.12.2007, fixing the market rate per acre at Rs. 42,000/- and directed the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty.
Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the first respondent. The first respondent passed the impugned orders dated 14.05.2009, suo-moto enhancing the market rate of the land at Rs. 52,000/- per acre. The said orders are put to challenge in these appeals.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit repudiating the allegations made in the appeal.
Heard the submissions made by Mr. K.Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. So.Paramasivam, learned Government Advocate for respondents.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned order, the first respondent relied on reports received from the District Registrar, Virudhunagar, dated 30.05.2008 and also other proceedings referred to in the order, without furnishing the same. It is submitted that relying on certain materials behind the back of the appellant is violative of principles of natural justice.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is squarely covered with the decision of this Court made in C.M.A. No. 149 of 2004, dated 25.09.2008.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the order. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the order.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
The impugned order was passed relying on certain materials without furnishing the same to the appellant. The impugned order refers to the report of the District Registrar, Virudhunagar and also other proceedings. But, those documents were not furnished to the appellant. Further, the judgment dated 25.09.2008 in C.M.A(MD) No. 149 of 2004 of this Court squarely applies to this case. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is extracted herein in this regard:
In my considered opinion, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the first respondent has committed an error in enhancing the market value in the appeal filed by the appellant as against the order dated 11.08.2003 of the second respondent without any notice for enhancing the market value and without affording any opportunity to the appellant. Hence, on that score, the order passed by the first respondent is not correct. Similarly, as pointing out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration has made a recommendation by adopting two different values for the adjacent lands without assigning any valid reason, which report was taken as a base for passing the order by the first respondent. In my considered opinion, under the above said circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the first respondent and remit the matter to the original authority to conduct fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the appellant, to put forth his contention before fixing the market value afresh.
Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order was passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice since certain materials were relied on without furnishing the same to the appellant.
In these circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the first respondent to consider afresh after giving opportunities to the appellant to put forth his case and to decide the market value thereafter. It is needless to say that the first respondent is directed to furnish all the materials which he proposes to rely on to fix the market value before deciding the matter.
Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The first respondent is directed to dispose of all the appeals after remand within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.