O. Radhakrishnan vs The Presiding Officer, Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Madras and Another

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—The only question which arises in this revision petition which is filed by the owner of the urban land relates to the

propriety of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, in rejecting the sale deeds in respect of plots of

land which are parts of the same lay-out in which the land which if sought to be assessed is located. The land sought to be assessed is two plots of

land namely, item 1, 4 grounds 1403 sq. ft. in R.S. 4569/1-A and item 2 is 2 grounds 778 sq. ft. in R.S. 4569/1-I. The relevant date with

reference to which the value has to be fixed in accordance with Sec. 5C(2) of the Act was 1st day of July, 1971. Now admittedly, with reference

to the specific date, there are no transactions which are relied upon by the owner. He filed before the Assistant Commissioner two sale deeds

dated 24.9.1973 and 7.10.1973. As already observed, these sale deeds are in respect of plots of land in the same lay out. The first sale deed is in

respect of plot No. 4 in R.S. 4569/1, measuring 1 ground 200 sq. ft. which was sold for Rs. 13,000 and the rate worked out to Rs. 12,000 per

ground. The second transaction dated 7.10.1973, is in respect of plot No. 5 measuring 1 ground 980 sq. ft. in R.S. 4569/J which was sold for Rs.

16,900, and the rate worked out to Rs. 12,000 per ground. Rejecting these documents, the Assistant Commissioner, however, took into

consideration the sale of land 1,269 sq.ft. situated at No. 2/2, First Cross St.,. Mowbrays Road, Madras. The land was vacant land at the time of

sale. The Assistant Commissioner himself observed that this data land was situated in the interior of Mylapore village which is not having all the

amenities. The sale deed being dated 20-3-1970,the Assistant Commissioner. Urban land Tax, Mylapore, Madras, worked out the value at Rs.

30,276 per ground. He added 9 per cent increase in the market value to arrive at the market value as on 1.7.1971 and determined at Rs. 34,000.

He ignored the sale deeds filed by the owner. This order was confirmed by the Tribunal rejecting the sale deeds filed by the owner on the ground

that the sale deeds were two years after the crucial date 1-7-1971. These orders are now challenged by the land owner in this revision petition.

Now it is difficult to appreciate how the sale deeds filed by the land owner could be rejected on the ground that they are two years prior to

1.7.1971. It is true that sub-S.(2) of S.5-C of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966 requires determination of market value as on 1st July,

1971. But it is wholly improper to expect the owner of land to file sale deeds evidencing transactions of exactly the same date or even of the same

year. Blaming the land owner for not producing such evidence could be done only on the assumption that transactions have taken place exactly on

the date or in the year as contemplated by law or even round about that date. Transactions of immovable property are not too frequent and it is not

impossible that the land owner is not able to produce evidence of transactions either of the date contemplated by the statute or even during the

period very much in proximity to the said date. If transactions are produced which are either before or after the prescribed date, those

transactions, if they arc in respect of properties which are within a reasonable distance of the property in respect of which urban land tax is to be

determined, must necessarily be considered by the authorities. If the transactions are of an earlier date, then allowance will have to be made for

increase in the land price. If transactions are of a later date, then also the price of the same in 1971 will have to be ascertained after making

allowance for the general increase in the level of price. The transaction in the year 1973, cannot be rejected on the ground that they are later 1-7-

1971. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, the land owner was satisfied if the prices at which plots in the same lay out were sold in 1973 were to

be assumed to be the price in 1971 also. Now, with the evidence available in respect of adjacent plots in the same lay-out it was wholly improper

for the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal to prefer a transaction in respect of land some distance away in order to determine the price

of the plot in question. The Assistant Commissioner as also the Tribunal were therefore clearly in error in ignoring the transactions which were

relied upon by the land owner in respect of adjacent plots of land. They should have accepted the price at which the adjacent plots were sold, with

the result that in respect of the land in question, even though the market value was to be determined with reference to the date 1-7-1971, since the

land owner himself was satisfied with the market value of Rs. 12,000 per ground, that market value should have been fixed at that amount.

Accordingly, the orders determining the market value of the land in question as on 1.7.1971 by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by

the Tribunal are modified and the market value of the land in question is determined at Rs. 12,000 per ground. The revision petition is thus allowed

with costs.