The market value of a property should be assessed based on ground reality, and the proper procedure must be followed in determining the market value.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamps Act against the order passed by the first respondent in No.33158/E1/2014, dated 27.08.2022.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28/the first respondent herein, in a suo-motu proceedings enhancing the stamp duty of the guideline value.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is as follows:

The appellant has purchased the property in R.S.No.P5/54-1, Old S.No.2478, measuring an extent of 31 ½ cents(1275.12 sq.mtr), out of a total extent of 1 acre and 62 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,75,000/-. When the document was presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar has referred the matter to the second respondent under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Pursuant to the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the second respondent by order, dated 13.6.2012, fixed the market value of the property at Rs.8,075/- per sq.mtr. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant had paid the differential stamp duty and the document has been handed over to the appellant. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a notice in the month of March 2022, calling upon the appellant to appear before him. The appellant has also sent a reply, dated 7.4.2022. Thereafter, by order, dated 19.7.2022, the first respondent has fixed the value of the land at Rs.10,765/- per sq.mtr. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the suo-motu enquiry has been initiated only in the year 2019, after a period of six years, after the passing of the order by the Original Authority(Stamp Collector) and further, no notice whatsoever was issued by the first respondent in the suo-motu proceedings, except one notice, dated 30.3.2022. Therefore her contention is that the order passed by the authority is not valid in the eye of law, enhancing the stamp duty. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no notice whatsoever was issued in the suo-motu proceedings. Further the Original Authority after making proper inspection, assessed the value of the property and fixed the stamp duty. Now the order indicates that as if the Inspection was conducted by the District Registrar at a later point of time. The first respondent, without following any procedure, has simply adopted the guideline value. Further, no opportunity whatsoever was given in the suo-motu proceedings and there is no proof to show that notice has been served on the appellant. Hence the entire order is liable to be set aside.

3. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellant appeared before the first respondent which makes it clear that notice has been issued in the suo-motu proceedings instituted in the year 2015 itself. Therefore, he would submit that the order passed by the first respondent does not require any interference by this Court.

4. In the light of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:

1. Whether the suo-motu enquiry has been initiated beyond the period of six years?

2. If so, whether proper opportunity has been given to the appellant?

3. Whether the procedure adopted by the first respondent in fixing the value of the property in question, is correct?

5. As far as the first aspect is concerned, the contention raised is that a suo-motu enquiry has been initiated beyond the period of six years, which is barred by limitation. It is relevant to note that this Court had summoned the entire records from the respondents and on a perusal of the records, which is intra-departmental in nature, makes it clear that the suo-motu enquiry has been initiated in the year 2015 itself