SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1412

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Syed Fathima - Petitioner
Versus
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 18998 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 16045 of 2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Mohammed Riyaz.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Subbaraj Special Govt. Pleader.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under the Indian Stamp Act, the determination of market value must follow due process, including the opportunity for the affected party to be heard.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Indian Stamp Act - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, emphasizing that the proceedings for determining market value had already commenced, and the petitioner would have the opportunity to be heard in the process, thus affirming the procedural integrity of the valuation process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash a notice issued under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, regarding the market value of a property, claiming that a similar property was valued at Rs.2490 per sq.ft.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the proceedings under Section 47(A) had already been initiated, and the petitioner would be given a chance to present their case before any determination of market value.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act was maintainable given that proceedings for market value determination were already in progress.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural framework of the Indian Stamp Act allows for a hearing before any final determination of market value, thus the writ petition was premature and not maintainable.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

[PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in S.No.114 of 2012 dated 18.09.2012 issued by the second respondent under Section 47(A) 1 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to calculate the market value of the property mentioned in the Document No.6255 of 2012, dated 24.08.2012, on the file of the second respondent in the light of the proceeding in Mu.Sa.X3/978/10 in Document No.851 of 2010, dated 3.12.2012 passed by the first respondent.]

The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in S.No.114 of 2012 dated 18.09.2012 issued by the second respondent under Section 47(A) 1 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to calculate the market value of the property mentioned in the Document No.6255 of 2012, dated 24.08.2012, on the file of the second respondent in the light of the proceeding in Mu.Sa.X3/978/10 in Document No.851 of 2010, dated 3.12.2012 passed by the first respondent.

2. Mr. P. Subbaraj learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in respect of similar suit property, the value has been determined at Rs.2490 per sq.ft. The Petitioner is ready to pay that amount and that the notice issued in this regard by the respondents is sought to be quashed.

4. This Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamps Act has already been initiated and the document is referred for determination of the market value. The order to be passed after following several procedures and the market value is to be determined after finding that any undervaluation is made in the instrument. Even while passing the order, the Petitioner will be heard and only after hearing him, the orders will be passed. As such, the prayer sought for by the Petitioner is not acceptable and the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top