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

2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
N. SHANMUGARAJA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.08.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN WP.Nos.40286 of 2006 and 28495 of 2005 WPMP.No.31094 of 2005 WP.No.40286 of 2006 N.Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

2.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -

Tamilnadu (Inspector General of Registration), 100 Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028

3.The Inspector General of Registration, 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

4.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli Jn – 627 001 5.The District Registrar, Collectorate Campus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002

6.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Collectorate Campus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002

7.The Sub Registrar, Burkit Maanagar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 6th respondent in X-1/3139/2003 and to quash the order dated 13.05.2003 and consequently to direct the first respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- collected from the petitioner as deficit stamp duty and registration charges pursuant to the order of the 6th respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate WP.No.28495 of 2005 N.Shanmugaraja ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -

Tamilnadu (Inspector General of Registration), 100 Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028

2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli Jn – 627 001

4.The District Registrar, Collectorate Campus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002

5.The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Collectorate Campus, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002 6.The Sub Registrar, Burkit Maanagar, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli

7.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.07.2005 in Letter No.26326/N3/U1/2003 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER The Writ Petition in WP.No.40286 of 2006 is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 6th respondent in X-1/3139/2003 and to quash the order dated 13.05.2003 and consequently to direct the first respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- collected from the petitioner as deficit stamp duty and registration charges pursuant to the order of the 6th respondent; and the writ petition in WP.No.28495 of 2005 is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated

19.07.2005 in Letter No.26326/N3/U1/2003 and to quash the same. 2. In respect of WP.No.28495 of 2005, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property comprised in survey No.149 situated at Palayamchettikulam Village by the registered sale deed dated 22.01.2001. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,80,000/- for the entire extent i.e. 10 acres of the property. The sale deed was presented for registration before the sixth respondent. Thereafter, in view of the instrument was not properly valued and referred the matter to the District Registrar and the District Registrar recommended the market value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The Deputy Inspector General i.e. the third respondent herein also confirmed the same and determined at Rs.5,00,000/

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top