Stamp authorities must follow Section 47A procedures, provide notice, record reasons, and substantiate undervaluation claims before enhancing property market value.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The appeal is directed against the against the order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Na.Ka.No.15360/N1/2017 by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. The appellant purchased agricultural land measuring 1 acre 20.20 cents located in Vazhuvadhur Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in S.No.252/1 through a sale deed dated 10.03.2016. The property was bought for Rs.4,80,800/-, calculated according to the guideline value of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. Before registering the document, the Sub-Registrar verified the parent documents, patta, chitta, and other revenue records and confirmed that the guideline value matched the value mentioned in the sale deed. After this verification, the document was registered and a registration receipt was issued.

2.2. When the appellant later went to collect the registered document, the Sub-Registrar informed him that the document might be sent for fixation of a higher guideline value because the authority believed that the property was undervalued. The appellant argued that he had already paid the stamp duty and registration fees according to the official guideline value and the actual market value. He also alleged that the Sub-Registrar was unnecessarily withholding the document.

2.3. After some time, the appellant received a letter in Form-I dated 11.08.2016 from the 2^nd respondent / District Revenue Officer (Stamps). In that notice, the authority stated that the 3^rd respondent / Sub-Registrar had classified the land as a house-site property instead of agricultural land and proposed fixing the value at Rs.120/- per square foot, demanding Rs.4,06,523/-as deficit stamp duty. The appellant immediately submitted his objections. He explained that the property is agricultural wet land, has no proper access road, and water stagnates during the rainy season. According to him, the value mentioned in the sale deed was correct and consistent with the guideline value.

2.4. Despite these objections, the 2^nd respondent / District Revenue Officer on 08.02.2017, issued Form II fixing the value at Rs.100/- per square foot and demanded Rs.3,33,156/- as additional stamp duty. The appellant claims that this order was passed without conducting a proper enquiry or giving him an adequate opportunity to present his case.

2.5. Challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 08.02.2017, the appellant preferred an appeal on 29.03.2017 before the 1^st Respondent / Inspector General of Registration and Chief Revenue Authority under Section 47A(5) of the Stamp Act and submitted representations and documents to show that nearby properties were valued much lower. However, after a long delay of several years, the authorities rejected his explanation and confirmed the higher valuation and by order dated 03.04.2024 the 1^st respondent / Inspector General of Registration and Chief Revenue Authority determined the market value of the property at Rs.100/- per square foot and directed the appellant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,33,156/-.

2.6. Aggrieved over the abovesaid order of the 1^st respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit as follows:

3.1. The authorities below had not followed Rules 4(2) and 11 A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules 1968 (for brevity "Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules") while dealing and disposing of the reference as well as the appeal respectively in determining the market value of the property and that they had completely ignored Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu St