Sundaram Medical Foundation vs The Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General of Registration and Others

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The appeal is filed u/s 47A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 putting in issue the order of the first respondent

Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai determining the value of the property,

which is the subject matter of the Document No. 3258/2002 registered on 11.9.2002. The appellant purchased the property on 11.9.2002 valuing

the same in a sum of Rs. 468 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 536.69 per sq. ft by registered document as aforesaid. After registration, the respondents

caused inspection of the property and fixed the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 625/- per sq. ft. The difference in stamp duty has been paid

as demanded by the respondents. Again on 31.1.2004 referring the earlier show cause notice, which did not reach the appellant, a show cause

notice has been issued purporting to revise the value of the property to Rs. 1250/- per sq. ft. The appellant by letter dated 11.2.2004 replied

justifying that the value of the property fixed by the respondent to Rs. 625/ per sq. ft. and disputed the proposed increase to Rs. 1250/-. By

referring the said reply, another show cause notice dated 19.5.2004 has been issued by the first respondent justifying the show cause notice dated

31.1.2004. The appellant once again sent a reply on 14.6.2004 reiterating the earlier reply dt.11.2.2004 and sought for the hearing date, if the

respondent was not accepting the reply. The appellant was served with a notice dt. 26.12.2005 fixing the hearing date on 9.1.2006. The appellant

by messenger sent a letter dated 9.1.2006 seeking adjournment on certain personal reasons. However, it is the case of the appellant that without

giving any further opportunity, the impugned order dated 8.3.2006 has been passed. The said order is now assailed in this appeal by contending

that no opportunity muchless reasonable opportunity has been given to the appellant to put forth their case before the first respondent. In spite of

the fact that the letter of the appellant dated 9.1.2006 has been received by the respondents, the further date of hearing has not been informed to

the appellant. Thus without hearing the appellant, the impugned order has been passed. On that basis, the present writ appeal is filed.

Mr. Srikanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents argued for sustaining the order of the first respondent on

the ground that when the letter dated 9.1.2006 was presented to the respondent authority, by the messenger, the further hearing date has been

clearly informed to him. Apart from that a notice informing the hearing date was also sent to the appellant. But in spite of that there was no

representation, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 13.2.2006. Hence the complaint of the appellant that the appellant was not

informed about the hearing date cannot be legally sustainable.

We heard the arguments of the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 provides the procedure on receipt of reference u/s

47-A which reads as follows:

(1) On receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form I

(a) to every person by whom, and

(b) to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed, informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit him

his representations, if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all

evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice.

(2) The Collector may, if thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under Sub-rule (1) has been issued.

(3) The Collector may for the purpose of his enquiry

(a) call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority;

(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority and

(c) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned.

(4) After considering the representations, if any, received from the person to whom notice under Sub-rule (1) has been issued, and after examining

the records and evidence before him, the Collector shall pass an order in writing provisionally determining the market value of the properties and

the duty payable. The basis on which the provisional market value was arrived at shall be clearly indicated in the order.

The procedure to be followed for disposal of the appeal has been stated in Rule 10 which reads as follows:

Procedure for the disposal of appeals: (1) If the appellate authority admits the appeal, a date shall be fixed for hearing the appellant. The

appellate authority shall issue a notice to the appellant informing him of the date on which and the time and place at which the appeal shall be heard.

Such notice shall also state that if the appellant does not appear on the day so fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the

appeal shall be liable to be dismissed for default or disposed of on merits ex parte.

(2) The appellate authority shall send a copy of the notice to the Collector together with a copy of the appeal and call for and obtain the records of

the case from the Collector.

Rule 15 prescribes the manner of service of notice and orders to the parties:

Any notice under Rule 4 or order under Rule 4 or 7 shall be served in the following manner, namely,

(a) in the case of any company, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, be served

(i) on the secretary or any director or other principal officer of the company, society or association of individuals, as the case may be or

(ii) by leaving it or sending it by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the company, society or association of individuals as the case

may be at the registered office, or if there is no registered office, then at the place where the company, society or association of individuals as the

case may be, carries on business.

(b) in the case of any firm, be served-

(i) upon any one or more of the partners, or

(ii) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on, upon any person having control or management of the partnership business

at the time of service.

(c) in the case of a family, be served upon the person in management of such family or of the property of such family, in the manner specified in

Clause (d).

(d) in the case of an individual person, be served -

(i) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or his Counsel or authorised agent; or

(ii) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or

(iii) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post acknowledgment due; or

(iv) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of

residence or business of the person concerned.

The core contention of the respondents is that the date of further hearing has been intimated to the appellant through the person who has handed

over the letter dated 9.1.2006 and in addition to that notice has also been sent to the appellant on 30.1.2006 intimating the appellant that the

hearing of the case has been posted to 13.2.2006. But in spite of that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence the matter has

been considered on merits and final order has been passed.

There is no material available in the files produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader to establish that the adjourned date of hearing

which was fixed to 13.2.2006 has been informed to the person, who has handed over the adjournment letter dated 9.1.2006. In addition to that

the letter informing the hearing date which is stated to be sent by the respondents to the appellant is also not in accordance with the statutory

requirements of sending the notice by Registered post. Any opportunity requires to be given under the statutory provisions, must be an opportunity

in the real sense and not an opportunity in farce. Hence, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if another opportunity is given

to the appellant so as to enable them to put forth their case to their satisfaction and have a decision on merits. In order to avoid any further

controversy in respect of the sending of notice or fixing date, we hereby direct the appellant to appear before the first respondent, the Chief

Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General of Registration on 3.12.2007 at 10.30 A.M. On such appearance of the appellant, the first

respondent is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. If the circumstances require for adjournment of the case, the adjourned date can

very well be informed to the appellant or its representative by obtaining due acknowledgment about the date fixed.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the first respondent impugned in this appeal is hereby set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed with the above direction. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.