Dismissed

V.Palanivelu, v. The Joint I Sub Registrar

Madras HC27 Sept 2022WP/26880/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed to quash orders fixing stamp duty at Rs.1000 per sq.ft and to claim a refund based on a 2017 circular. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the valuation order was valid and the circular did not apply to documents registered prior to its date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay sum of Rs.2,15,100/- within four weeks with interest and penalty if default occurs.

V.Palanivelu, Vs The Joint I Sub Registrar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 27.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶7

and WMP.Nos.23095 & 23096 of 2016

V.Palanivelu

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint I Sub Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶12

2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Thanjavur.

¶13

3.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 600 028. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer :Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Sl.No.899 (stamp duty) dated 11.05.2015 and 3rd respondent made in Pa.Mu.No.24875/N5/N4/2015 dated 29.04.2016 and to quash them and consequently confirm the value of the property as fixed in the registered document No.622 of 2013 at the office of the 1st respondent.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthupandian For RR1 to 3 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

¶16

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 11.05.2015 and 3rd respondent dated 29.04.2016 and to quash them and consequently confirm the value of the property as fixed in the registered document.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased a

¶22

vacant house site in T.S.No.1001/2 measuring 385.08 sq.mr and T.S.No.1003/2 measuring 185.81 sq.mr. Comprised in Koranad, Mayiladuthurai Town limit and the value has been truly set forth in the document as Rs.500/- sq.ft and the total value of the property has been set forth in the document as Rs.30,72,500/-. The 1^st respondent after verification of the records registered the above document on 27.03.2013. While so, the 1^st respondent has made a reference under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for adjudication to the 2^nd respondent vide his letter No.30/2013 dated 23.05.2013 and the 1^st respondent has

¶23

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶26

issued a notice directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty by valuing the property at Rs.1000/- per sq.ft, without conducting any enquiry. In response, the petitioner has sent detailed objection and as per direction of the 2^nd respondent has also appeared before the Special Tahsildar (Stamps) Kumbakonam. While so, the 2^nd respondent has passed exparte order by confirming the value as found in the guidelines register at Rs.1000/- per sq.ft and directed the petitioner to pay deficit the stamp duty of Rs.1,76,885/- vide his proceedings dated 11.05.2015. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the 3^rd respondent, who issued a notice for enquiry and after hearing the matter, the 3^rd respondent has passed final order dated 29.04.2016 confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the said orders, the present petition is filed.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner valued the total value of the property in the document as Rs.30,72,500/- by collecting Rs.500/- per sq.ft, however the respondent, without conducting any proper enquiry, has fixed the value

¶28

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶31

at Rs.1000/- and demanded the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the

¶32

1^st respondent has issued a circular dated 08.06.2017, wherein a direction was given to the Registration Department to collect the stamp duty by deducting 33% of the total value and hence this Court may issue direction to the respondents to deduct 33% as per the 1^st respondent's circular dated 08.06.2017 and prays for appropriate orders in that regard.

¶33

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that when a Deed of Sale dated 27.03.2013 presented for registration, the value of the property was verified with the Market Value Guideline, and it was found that the said Sale Deed was undervalued and thereby the 1^st respondent has reason to believe that the market value of the property was not truly set forth therein and referred the matter to the 2^nd respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act for determination of market value of stamp duty and collection of difference in stamp duty. The 2^nd respondent in his order dated

¶34

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶37

11.05.2015 has fixed the market value at Rs.1000/- per sq.ft after hearing the parties and further the Circular relied upon by the petitioner is not applied to the present case on hand, in view of the fact that Clause no.6 of the said Circular makes it clear that if the document is registered prior to 08.06.2017 and when the issue is pending before the competent authority, the stamp duty is to be collected only based on the old guideline value and hence, it is further submitted that Clause 6 is against

¶38

the petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said circular and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶40

Facts in the present case is not in dispute. It is relevant to extract the following:

¶41

5.	Mtzj;jpy; filgpof;fg;gl;l ;[	;; ;;; kjpg;g[ U/30.72.500 (rJuo 1f;F U/500)
6.	Mtzg;gjpt[ ehspy; tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[	;[ ; ; ;[ (1/4/2012) U/61.45.700 (rJuo 1f;F U/1000)

¶42

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

¶45

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶46

5.	Mtzj;jpy; filgpof;fg;gl;l kjpg;g[	U/30.72.500 (rJuo 1f;F
		U/500)
7.	j";rht{h; jdpj;Jiz Ml;rpahpd; (Kj;jpiu) 47A-d;	; U/61.45.700 (rJuo 1f;F
	fPHhdMizg;gobrhj;jpd; kjpg;g[	U/1000)

¶47

Admittedly the petitioner presented the document for

¶48

registration by fixing the guideline value as Rs.500/- per sq.ft and the total value mentioned by the petitioner as Rs.30,72,500/-, and the same was registered on 27.03.2013, however on the date of registration, guideline value per sq.ft was Rs.1000/- which was disputed by the petitioner and though the petitioner claimed that on the date of registration, the guideline value was Rs.500/-, no document was produced before this Court to substantiate the said claim and hence the value fixed by the original authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide the impugned orders does not warrant interference.

¶49

The next question to consider is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of Circular of the 1^st respondent dated 08.06.2017 and in that regard, this Court has perused the said circular,

¶50

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶53

particularly clause no.6 and it is relevant to extract the same:

¶54

''6. 08/06/2017 njjp kw;Wk; mjw;F Kd;du; gjpt[ – bra;ag;gl;l gjpt[f;Fj; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L kjpg;g[ epu;zaj;jpw;fhf epYitapYs;s tHf;Ffs; bghWj;jkl;oy; giHa tHpfhl;o kjpg;gpd; mog;gilapnyna kjpg;g[ epu;zak; bra;J – mjdog;gilapy; bray;glntz;Lk;/ mt;thwhd kid kid gpupt[fSf;F 09/06/2017 njjp Kjy; kjpg;g[ 33 rjtPjk; Fiwj;J nkny tupir 1y; Fwpg;gpl;l eilKiwg;go filgpoj;jpl ntz;Lk;/ ''

¶55

A close perusal of the above said clause makes it clear that if the document is registered prior to 08.06.2017 and when issue was pending before the authority, the authority has to collect the amount as per the old guideline value fixed by the Valuation Committee and however if documents is registered on or after 09.06.2017, they are entitled for reduction of 33% and in view of the said clause, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the circular and hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶56

For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed and the

¶57

petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,100/- within a period of

¶58

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶61

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without any interest and penalty, and if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within a stipulated time frame, he is directed to pay the amount with interest and penalty as indicated in the impugned order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.09.2022

1.The Joint I Sub Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶66

2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Thanjavur.

¶67

3.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 600 028.

¶68

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

M.DHANDAPANI.,J.

W.P.No.26880 of 2016

¶74

27.09.2022

¶75

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Palanivelu, v. The Joint I Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Palanivelu, v. The Joint I Sub Registrar

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

Tmt. Santha, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Ravikumar Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Shamsia Amir @ Shamsia Vs The District Revenue Officer

M/S.Nsl (Sez) Chennai Private Vs the Inspector General of

V.Selvi, Vs The Land Commissioner

C.Rosiah Vs The Special Tahsildar