Partly allowed

R. Govindarajan v. the Chief Controlling

Madras HC18 Jul 2014CMA/1927/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed challenging the enhancement of market value for stamp duty. The court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 3,000/- per cent, aligning it with fixed values from prior cases involving the same survey number, and ordered the appellant to pay interest.

What did the court decide?

Market value of the subject land fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per cent. Appellant liable to pay interest of 1% per month from 11.05.2012 till date of payment.

R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

C.M.A.No.1927 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
R.Govindarajan ...Appellant
..vs..
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Tamil Nadu,
Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamp),
O/o.The District Collector,
5 th Floor, “M.Sinkaravelan Maligai”,
32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Thiruporur. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 47(A)(a)
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, against the order passed by the 1 st
respondent in Proceedings Pa.Mu.No.7973/No.1/2006, dated 29.05.2008,
varying the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Proceedings
Na.Ka.C.Pa.4107/03/A6, dated 28.11.2005 and to accept the value
mentioned in the Sale Deed bearing Document Nos.2714/02 on the file
of the 3 rd respondent as the market value of the property and to
return the document to the appellant.

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

The appeal has been filed under Section 47(A)(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent viz., the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Tamil Nadu – Inspector

¶8

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

¶9

General of Registration, vide his Proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.7973/No.1/2006, dated 29.05.2008, whereby the market value fixed by the 2^nd respondent vide his in Proceedings Na.Ka.C.Pa.4107/03/A6, dated 28.11.2005 for the property purchased by the appellant, was enhanced by the 1^st respondent from Rs.16/- per sq.ft to Rs.23/- per sq.ft.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that originally the authority viz., 2^nd respondent herein had fixed a sum of Rs.16/- per sq.ft as the market value in respect of the land in S.No.119/4 situated at Pondur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, which was purchased by the petitioner, in and by the sale deed dated 31.10.2002. On appeal filed by the appellant herein, the 1^st respondent has enhanced the market value from Rs.16/- per sq.ft. to Rs.23/- per sq.ft. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶11

3.It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that in a similar case in C.M.A.No.2989 of 2010 in respect of the same survey number in Pandur Village, Chengalpet taluk, by way of an order dated 15.12.2010 this Court has remanded the matter back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 1^st respondent has also fixed the market value of the land in respect of the same survey number at Rs.3,000/- per cent by way of his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.7520/N1/2012 dated 11.05.2012.

¶12

4.Further, following the order passed in C.M.A.No.2989 of 2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the appeal in C.M.A.No.2988 of 2010 by order dated 22.08.2013, fixing the market value of the land as Rs.3,000/- per cent in respect of the same survey number. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case on hand also comes within the purview of the same survey number and the same amount may be fixed in respect of the subject land in this case also.

¶13

5.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

6.On a perusal of the materials available on record, I find that the 1^st respondent by way of his proceedings dated 11.05.2012 in Pa.Mu.No.7520/N1/2012, has fixed the market value of the land as Rs.3,000/- per cent in respect of the same survey number in Pandur Village, Chengalpet Taluk. Hence, taking into consideration the matter being considered, I am of the opinion that the same market value could be fixed for the subject property in the present case also.

¶15

7.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the subject land is fixed at Rs.3,000/- per cent and the appellant is liable to pay an interest of 1% per month

¶16

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

¶17

from 11.05.2012 till the date of payment. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 11.08.2014

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar
ssv
Copy to
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Tamil Nadu,
Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamp),
O/o.The District Collector,
5 th Floor, “M.Sinkaravelan Maligai”,
32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Thiruporur.
1 CC to M/s.R.Gowri, Advocate SR.No. 31820
1 CC to the Spl.Government Pleader, SR.No. 31808
C.M.A.No.1927 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
RBD (CO)
PSI (11.08.2014)

¶21

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

R. Govindarajan v. the Chief Controlling

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Govindarajan v. the Chief Controlling

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor Ramesh Vs Ravikumar

R. Subramani Vs Inspector-General of

Lakshmi Vs Viveganandan

G. Malini W/O.R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

The Branch Manager Vs Singaravelu

The Managing Director Vs Dr. Usha Devi