Allowed

Mrs v.Arul v. Inspector General of

Madras HC7 Feb 2018CMA/2229/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal filed against an order setting the market value of registered house sites. The judgment held that the appellate authority violated Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules by failing to inspect the property and issue notice to the parties before deciding the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the first respondent on 23.02.2011 is set aside; the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

Mrs v.Arul Vs Inspector General of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :: 07-02-2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

C.M.A.No.2229 OF 2011

¶6

Mrs.V.Arul ... Appellant

¶7

-vs1. Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2. Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore. 3. No.1 Villupuram Joint Sub Registrar, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ...Respondents Appeal against the order, dated 23.02.2011, passed in proceedings Pa.Mu.No.42161/N3/2008, on the file of the Cheif Controlling Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. For appellant : Mr.V.Babu For respondents : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar, Govt.Advocate (CS) JUDGMENT

¶8

The appellant registered a house site by document No.3046/2007 on the file of third respondent, who referred the document to second respondent for proper valuation. The second respondent passed final orders on 31.07.2008, against which, the appellant preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the appeal was disposed of by the first respondent by his order, dated 23.02.2011, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶9

According to the appellant, she had presented five documents, which were registered during the relevant period i.e., between 01.01.2003 and 28.05.2008, wherein, the market value of the property was ranging between Rs.24/- and Rs.37/-

¶10

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

¶11

per sq.ft.; therefore, redetermination of the market value of the property by the second respondent at Rs.500/- per sq.ft. is exorbitant and arbitrary; the first respondent has fixed the market value of the property at Rs.3250/- per square metre and passed orders; and that the first respondent has neither issued any notice of inspection nor has he furnished the report submitted by the second respondent to her, before deciding the appeal.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that no inspection of the property, as contemplated under Rule 11-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968, in short, "the Rules", was done by the first respondent. Rule 11-A of the Rules reads as under :

¶14

"11-A. Decision of the appellate authority. - The appellate authority may, for the purpose of deciding an appeal, -

¶15

(a) call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority;

¶16

(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and

¶17

¶18

The above Rule 11-A mandates that the appellate authority, while deciding an appeal, shall conduct inspection of the property. It is also a mandatory requirement that before conducting inspection, notice shall be given to the parties concerned. Further, it is mandated that ample opportunity be given to the parties concerned. Ample opportunity shall be furnishing of relevant material, which is relied upon by the authority, before taking a decision, to the party concerned, so that the party can put forth his or her defence against the material furnished. Denial of the material documents relied upon by the appellate authority will amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶19

In the instant case, it is evident that no inspection, as contemplated under Rule 11-A of the Rules, was conducted, much less no notice of inspection or supply of documents to the appellant was made by the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent. Failure to comply with the

¶20

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

¶21

mandatory requirements will vitiate the proceedings. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not legally sustainable and it is, accordingly, set aside.

¶22

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar
dixit
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-28.
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Cuddalore
3. The Joint Sub Registrar No.1,
Villupuram.
4. The Chief Controlling Authority cum
Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9510
+1cc to Mr.Venkatasamy Babu, Advocate in sr.no.9317 (07/06/18)
C.M.A.No.2229 OF 2011
rv(co)
cs/24/04/18

¶27

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

Mrs v.Arul v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs v.Arul v. Inspector General of

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

S.Mahalingam Vs the Tamilnadu Chief Revenue

V.Boopathy Vs K.a.Sankaran

V.Rajendran Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Tmt.S.Parvathi,C/O.a.Shanmugar

C.Govindasamy Vs the Inspector General of

Sampoornam Vs the Tamilnadu Chief Revenue