Periasamy and R. Natarajan vs The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, The Collector of Registration and The Sub-Registrar

S. Palanivelu, J.—The Appellant purchased properties in Survey No. 254 of 586/1 with an extent of 2 acres 67th land under two documents dated 9.6.1997 and they were registered in the Sub-Registrar''s office, Kodumudi in 200/98 and 201/98 on 16.3.1998. The vale per acre was fixed at Rs. 1,67,300/- was mentioned for the above said properties with two wells and motor pump-sets. Since the Sub-Registrar felt that in the documents true market value has not been set forth, he made a reference u/s 47-A(1) of Registration Act, 1908 before the Deputy Registrar (Stamps), Coimbatore by means of his letters dated 29.5.1998 and 27.5.1998 with letter Nos. 49/98 and 50/98. On receipt of the above said reference, the above said Appellate Authority issued Form 1 on 10.6.1998 to the Appellant under Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Thereafter, he passed a proceeding on 7.1.2002 confirming the proposal of the Sub-Registrar which was based on the guideline value. The value for the property is Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The Appellant was directed by the above said proceedings to pay the stamp duty as directed by the Sub-Registrar.

Thereafter, the Appellant preferred further Appeal before the Inspector General of Registration and on 1.9.2003, the said authority confirmed the proceedings passed by the Deputy Collector who had valued the properties at Rs. 1,67,300/- per acre and that the same has to be treated as Market value of the property.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. V.S. Sivasundaram would strenuously contend that in as much as the final order passed by the Deputy Collector (Stamps) is not in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, the order itself is vitiated and hence it has to be declared as non-est in the eye of law.

Conversely, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Bavani Subarayn, Special Govt. Pleader (CS) would submit that due to the administrative reasons there might have been some delay but the authorities concerned, in all stages have issued notices to the Appellant, inspected the properties, made due enquiries and assessed the market value of the property and that the proceeding is not suffering from any illegality.

Rule 7 of the Rules would provide that the final order by the Collector shall be passed within three months from the date of the first notice. The first notice is provided under Rule 4 which proceeds that on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A from a Registering Officer, the Collector shall issue notice in Form 1. This is the first notice to be issued by the Collector and from the issuance of Form No. 1, namely the first notice, final order shall be passed within three months as per Rule 7, which reads as follows:

Final order determining the market value,-- (1) The Collector shall, after considering the representations received in writing and those urged at the time of hearing or in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned or their failure to appear in person at the time of hearing in any case after careful consideration of all the relevant factors and evidence available with him [pass an order within three months from the date of first notice] determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument, and communicate the order so passed to the parties and take steps to collect the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any.

(2) A copy of the order shall be communicated to the Registering Officer concerned for his record.

(3) The difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector shall be paid within two months from the date of final order passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 47-A.

(4) The Collector shall, after collecting the difference in amount of stamp duty and interest, if any, u/s 47-A, give a certificate in Form III by endorsement on the instrument.

This Court in Tata Coffee Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others,, 2008 (3) CTC 614, has considered the scope of the above said Rule 7 and held that the final order shall be passed within three months for determining the market value of the properties.

In this case, long after three months, the proceedings have been passed by the Deputy Collector on 10.6.1998, Form 1 was issued and on 7.1.2002 alone, after 3 1/2 years, the final order has been passed. Hence, the delay in passing final orders in these matters are violative of Rule 7 and due to this reason, the proceedings dated 7.1.2002 are vitiated. In view of the above said observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to the allowed and accordingly it is allowed directing the Respondent to release the document without any endorsement. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.