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) 2137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Mrs.Anita Thomas – Appelant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.28652 of 2022 and 4060 of 2023 & W.M.P.Nos.27935, 27938, 27939 of 2022, 4130, 4131, 4132 & 4133 of 2023
Decided on : 24-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appelant : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar for Mr.R.Venkata Raman for Mr.Kaushik Ramaswamy
For the Respondent: B.Vijay, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar for Mr.R.Venkata Raman for Mr.Kaushik Ramaswamy

Market value determination must adhere to established guidelines and procedures, and unilateral fixation by authorities is invalid.

Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A - Writ petitions challenging the determination of market value for properties subject to an exchange deed - Petitioners claimed arbitrary fixation of market value by authorities without following established guidelines - Court found that the fixation was not in accordance with law and lacked proper authority. (Paras 1, 2, 39, 43)

(B) Market Value Determination - The court emphasized that market value must be determined based on established guidelines and procedures, and not unilaterally by authorities. (Paras 23, 39)

(C) Jurisdiction of Authorities - The court ruled that the District Registrar exceeded his authority by fixing market values without proper evidence and procedure. (Paras 24, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners owned land in Karapakkam Village and sought to exchange it with another party. The exchange deed was registered, but the market value was unilaterally fixed by authorities at a higher rate than the established street-wise guidelines.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the fixation of market value was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law, and directed the Collector to determine the market value following proper procedures.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the market value determination and the authority of the District Registrar in fixing such values.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the fixation of market value must adhere to established guidelines and that the authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; orders impugned set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The fixation of market value must adhere to established guidelines and procedures, and unilateral fixation by authorities is invalid [judgement_subject]. - The District Registrar exceeded his authority by fixing market values without proper evidence and procedure [judgement_subject]. - The market value must be determined based on established guidelines and procedures, not unilaterally by authorities [judgement_subject]. - The petitioners challenged the arbitrary fixation of market value by authorities without following established guidelines (!) (!) . - The court found that the fixation of market value was not in accordance with law and lacked proper authority (!) (!) . - The court emphasized that market value must be determined based on established guidelines and procedures (!) (!) . - The District Registrar exceeded his authority by fixing market values without proper evidence and procedure (!) (!) . - The fixation of market value must adhere to established guidelines, and authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction (!) . - The court held that the fixation of market value was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law (!) . - The court directed the Collector to determine the market value following proper procedures (!) . - The fixation of market value guidelines and revision of market value guidelines of properties shall be done only by the Valuation Committee (!) . - The District Registrar assumed the role of the sub-committee, which is not valid in the eye of law (!) . - A reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is not maintainable if there was no undervaluation or intention to undervalue (!) . - The reference made under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was declared not valid in the eye of law (!) . - The Collector is directed to determine the market value as required under Section 47-A independently on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioners (!) .

What is the procedure for determining the market value of properties for stamp duty purposes?

What are the powers of the District Registrar in fixing market values?

What are the grounds for referring a document for determination of market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act?


ORDER :

1. In these writ petitions a common challenge is made to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners in W.P.No.28652 of 2022, who are also arrayed as respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.No.4060 of 2023, and thereby confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent determining the market value of the properties which are subject matter of the exchange deed presented by the petitioners in the writ petitions for registration.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioners in W.P.No.28652 of 2022 were the absolute owners of the land measuring an extent of 27 cents in S.No.1/1A1; 26 cents in S.No.1/1A1 and 46 cents in S.No.1/1A3, totally measuring an extent of 99 cents or thereabouts situate at Karapakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, then Kancheepuram Distirct, now, Chennai District, having purchased the same through sale deed dated 28.09.1995 registered as Doc.No.4960 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Adyar from one Natesan and others represented by their Agent-G.Mahan. The lands which were owned by the petitioners in W.P.No.28652 of 2022 are land locked and have no road access, as the lands are bounded by government poramboke lands and the larger extent of land owned by 5th respondent, who is the petitioner in the other writ petition in W.P.No.4060 of 2023, on the northern side of burial ground road, Karapakkam. The 5th respondent was owning lands measuring an extent of 15 cents in S.No.174/3A1, 31 cents out of 45 cents in S.No.174/3B, 31 cents out of 45 cents in S.No.174/3C, 11 cents in S.No.174/3D1 and 11 cents in S.No.1743/3D2, totally measuring about 99 cents or thereabouts. The lands owned by the 5th respondent are situated on the southern side of the burial ground of Karapakkam village and the same are not contiguous to their larger extent of property on which the 5th respondent is running an engineering college known as KCG College of Engineering. Therefore, both the petitioners and the 5th respondent in W.P.No.28562 of 2022 decided to exchange their respective lands for better enjoyment. Accordingly, they entered into a Deed of Exchange on 21.10.2021 which was registered as Doc.No.11594 of 2021 on the file of the 4th respondent. Before the execution of exchange deed, both of them made enquiries to get the market value guidelines of their properties. However, they were informed that no survey number wise market value guidelines were available for Karapakkam village and only streetwise guideline value are available in respect of all lands at Karapakkam village. On enquiry, they found that market value guidelines are fixed for nearby properties by street wise and there is no specific guideline value fixed for the subject-survey numbers. The street-wise market value guidelines as fixed by the departments are as under:-

Sl. No.

Street Name

Guideline Value (in Rupees)

Land Classification

Effective Start Date

1

Gangai Amman Koil Street & Extension

Rs.1340/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-II

09.06.2017

2

Hindustan College

Rs.1675/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

3

Hindustan Engineering Training Centre

Rs.1675/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

4

KCG College Road

Rs.1340/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

5

KCG College Road

Rs.1340/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

6

Thendral Nagar to KCG College Link Road

Rs.1340/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

7

Burial Ground Road

Rs.502/- per square feet

Residential Class II Type-I

09.06.2017

Therefore, the petitioners valued their lands at Rs.1673/- per square feet and the entire property was valued at Rs.7,22,40,003/- . The exchange deed was presented b

        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