Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3592
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. VIMALA, J.
S. Sivasubramaniam
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Chennai & Others
C.M.A. No. 1443 of 2006 & C.M.P. No. 6470 of 2006
Decided On : 11-10-2013
For the Appellant:S. Muthiah for N. Damodaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. M. Jayashree, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
The central legal point established is the importance of timely reference after registration, proper classification of land, factors for determining market value, and the mandatory notice requirement for property inspection under the Stamp Act, 1899.
Headnote:
Stamp Act - Property Valuation - 1899 - Rules 5, 6, 11-A - The judgment discusses the valuation of property under the Stamp Act, 1899 and the relevant rules. It highlights the importance of timely reference after registration, the classification of land, factors to be considered in determining market value, and the mandatory notice requirement for inspection of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenges the order fixing the market rate of the property and the valuation of coconut trees and building. The appellant contends that the notice issued by the District Revenue Officer after 5 years is barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upholds the appellant's contention on the plea of limitation and criticizes the failure to consider objections raised. It also questions the valuation of the property as a house site instead of agricultural land and the lack of notice for property inspection.
Issues: The issues include the validity of the notice issued after 5 years, the proper classification of the land, and the failure to issue a mandatory notice for property inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the interpretation of the Stamp Act, 1899 and Rules 5, 6, 11-A, emphasizing the importance of timely reference, proper classification of land, factors for determining market value, and the mandatory notice requirement for property inspection.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the order is quashed, and the Registering Authority is directed to return the original document to the appellant.
The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General of Registration), dated 13.2.2006.
2. By the order dated 13.2.2005, the appellate authority has fixed the market rate of the property at Rs.100/- per square feet. The seven coconut trees have been valued at Rs.3,500/- and building has been valued at Rs.7,00,145/-.
3. The appellant has purchased the property by virtue of the sale deed dated 27.1.1994, an extent of 53 cents located at Coimbatore registration district, Mettupalayam Taluk, Chickathasam palayam village, Mettupalayam Town, in R.S.No.376. As per the document, the property has been valued at Rs.80,000/-. Agricultural land is the classification of the property as per the document. In the document of the vendor also, the property has been described only as an agricultural land.
3.1. After the registration of the property, the District Revenue Officer has issued Form I notice, only on 23.1.2003. Pointing out that issuance of Form I notice, after the period of nearly 5 years, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Revenue Officer has no power to issue notice after the period of five years and the notice issued is clearly barred by limitation.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that no specific period has been prescribed under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, the reference is not invalid and it is not barred by limitation.
4.1. It is the specific contention of the appellant that reference ought to have been made within a period of three weeks from the date of completion of registration and therefore, the belated reference and the belated Form I notice (issued only after five years) is barred by limitation.
5. In support of the contention, the decision reported in 2001 (2) CTC 449 (The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and two others Vs. M.Ponnusamy) is relied upon. In this judgment, it has been held that reference should be made immediately after registration or soon after registration is completed and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of completion of registration of documents. The observation made in paragraph 27 is heavily relied upon wherein it has been held as follows:-
“27. ........ We are unable to countenance such a stand. In the absence of any time limit provided for under Section 47-A(1) and in the light of the analysis of the process involved in reference to Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, there is no scope for holding that reference can be made at any point of time.”
5.1. It was held in the above decision that the reference should be made immediately after registration or soon after registration is completed and at any rate within three weeks from the date of completion of registered documents. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is correct and it has to be upheld on the plea of limitation.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant when the issue of limitation was raised before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, namely, the Inspector General of registration, he has not chosen to deal with the issue and therefore, the order passed in not a valid order in the eye of law. In other words, it is contended that the very purpose of hearing the parties would loose its meaning when it is not considered. This contention has to be accepted as it is open to the appellate authority either to accept the contention or to reject the contention, but, it is not proper not even to consider the objections raised.
6.1. Yet another contention was that the land in dispute is used only as an agricultural land and not as a house site, and therefore, the valuation made as if it is a house site is not proper.
6.2. In support of the contention, the averment stated in the sale deed are relied upon. Moreover, it is specifically pointed out that as the ground water was not sufficient to do agriculture, maize was the plaint raised and that will no
