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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M/S. HINDUSTAN MARINE – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE – Respondent
CMA 371/2017



Advocates:
['M/S R C PAULKANAGARAJ', '', 'M SOUNDAR VIJAY ARUL', 'T PREM KUMAR', 'M/S T M PAPPIAH', '', 'SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER', 'FOR RR AND', 'R THE SUB-REGISTRAR', 'RADHAPURAM']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 29.01.2019

Delivered on : 08.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.371 of 2017

and

CMP.Nos.2593 and 4501 of 2017

M/s.Hindustan Marine Industries,

rep. by its Proprietor M.K.Balraj,

D.No.12-42A, Fishing Industrial Area,

Udayavara – 574 118,

Udipi, Karnataka.

... Appellant

Vs

1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamps),

The Inspector General of Registration,

100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),

Thirunelveli.

3.The Sub Registrar,

Radhapuram,

Thirunelveli Registration District,

Thirunelveli.

... Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 41, Rule 2 CPC read

with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act against the order

dated 08.12.2016 passed by the first respondent in

Na.Ka.No.7909/N4/2016.

For Appellant

:

Mr.R.C.Paulkanagaraj

For Respondents

:

Mr.T.M.Pappiah

Spl. G.P. for R1 & R2

R3 - No Appearance

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant against the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the first

respondent fixing the value at Rs.1,020/- in respect of the

building measuring an extent of 666 square metre situated in

S.No.252/1 and the remaining lands situated in S.No.249/2A, 2B,

259/3, 252/1 and 252/2 at Rs.10,12,200/- per acre.

2. The case of appellant is as follows:

The appellant is carrying on business in manufacture of fish

meal and fish oil in Udupi, Karnataka State and Gujarat

respectively. With a view to start factory in Tamil Nadu, the

appellant had purchased lands situated in Vijayapathi Village,

Radhapuram Taluk, Thirunelveli District in S.Nos.249/2A

measuring 0.09 Acre; S.No.249/2B measuring 3.99 Acres;

S.No.252/1 measuring 5.80 Acres; S.No.252/2 measuring 0.12 Acre

and S.No.259/3 measuring 1.51 Acre in all 11.51 Acres for a

total sale consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The total extent of

land purchased by the appellant is 11.51 Acres, which is a dry

manavari punja land, wherein a factory building admeasuring 380

sq. mts. was situate on one side and the remaining extent of

land was dry vacant land. The factory building is nearly seven

years old and no machinery is available therein and the factory

building has become defunct and even the electricity service

connection has been served by the TNEB.

3. According to the appellant, the sale deed was registered

on the file of the third respondent as Document No.1562 of 2015.

The lands were valued at Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare and the

building was valued at Rs.16,36,000/- and the appellant had paid

stamp duty and stamp charges as per the guideline value. But

the third respondent without any reason refused to return the

sale deed bearing Document No.1562/2015 and fixed the value at

Rs.1,700/- per sq. mt. and sent it to the second respondent

under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.

4. By the order dated 04.02.2016. the second respondent

without any valid reasons fixed the value of the property at

Rs.5,09,61,617/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant

had filed an appeal to the first respondent. By the impugned

order dated 08.12.2016, the first respondent fixed the value at

Rs.1,020/- in respect of the building measuring an extent of 666

square metre situated in S.No.252/1 and the remaining lands

situated in S.No.249/2A, 2B, 259/3, 252/1 and 252/2 at

Rs.10,12,200/- per acre. Challenging the same, the appellant

has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. Resisting the appeal, the second respondent filed counter

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

stating that since Document No.1562 of 2015 has been executed

without following the guideline value and bearing lesser stamp

duty, the same was referred to the second respondent to

ascertain the value of the

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