The main legal point established is the limited scope of court interference in market value determination, the importance of following statutory procedures, and the need to protect state revenue.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47A-10 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 9(5)(a) Tamilnadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules 1968), against the order of the 1st respondent in Ka.No.32558/U1/14 dated 12.8.2016 and served on the appellant on 23.8.2016.

The order passed under Section 47-A(6) of Indian Stamp Act in proceedings dated 12.08.2016 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. Admittedly, the appellant registered a sale deed on 15.05.2013. Before registering the sale deed, an agreement for sale was also registered by the appellant. The competent authority found that the document was undervalued and assessed the Market value as per the guidelines. The order impugned reveals that the Special Deputy Collector, (Stamps), Cuddalore, determined the market value of the subject property as Rs.12,00,000/- per acre and the learned counsel for the appellant states that the said amount had already been paid and necessary endorsement was made in sale deed itself. Under those circumstances, it is contended by the appellant that the first respondent initiated suo motu revision under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, the said initiation itself is untenable on the ground that the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), considered all the documents as well as the prevailing circumstances in that locality and accordingly, fixed the market value of the property.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that no materials available on record to arrive a conclusion regarding the market value fixed by the first respondent in the present case. An exorbitant value is fixed without following the guidelines. No materials are produced nor any such copies are communicated to the appellant, enabling the appellant to defend his case. Thus, the entire process undertook by the first respondent for revision of market value is perverse and not in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under the Statute and Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the reports were not communicated nor any documents were sent to the appellant for the purpose of submission of his defense. Thus, the order is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the property is an agricultural land and also surrounded by the agricultural lands. Therefore, the value fixed by the first respondent is excessive and not in consonance with the prevailing situation as well as the actual market value of that locality.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader disputed the said contentions by stating that it is incorrect to state that the subject property is an agricultural land. There is no cultivation activities going on and the said property has already been divided as housing plots by forming a layout. The subject property is surrounded by some residential building and situate 5 Kms from the Villupuram Bus stand and more specifically in Villupuram-Chennai Highways. It is further contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that at present, the subject property has been converted as housing plots and by forming a layout and the name of the layout is Sri Lakshmi Guberan Nagar and considering the situation, the authorities competent made further enquiry and ascertained that even agricultural lands in the nearby area, which sold for Rs.25 lakhs per acre to Rs.30 lakhs per acre. However, the subject property situate nearby the residential area and it was purchased for the purpose of forming housing layout. The said factors were not considered by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps). Thus, the first respondent/Inspector General of Registration initiated suo motu revision under Section 47-A(6) and undertook the process of ascertaining the correct facts, so as to determine the market value of the subject property. In view of the fact that the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) committed a patent error in fixing t