Partly allowed¶¶57

P. Palanivel v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC1 Jul 2025CMA/2489/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deficit stamp duty; Section 47-A(5) Indian Stamp Act; guideline value / market value fixation; agricultural punjai land; 45 coconut trees; Nadukuppam Village; Marakkanam Sub-Registrar; Inspector General of Registration; Additional Inspector General (Guideline Value); Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) Cuddalore; valuation reduced from Rs.87 to Rs.60 per square foot; Rs.5,64,761/- demand; comparable sales particulars lacking; Madras High Court CMA No. 2489 of 2022; T.V.Thamilselvi J.; decided 01-07-2025; Tamil Nadu stamp duty appeal.

What did the court decide?

Valuation modified from Rs.87 to Rs.60 per square feet; appellant directed to pay Rs.60 per square feet without interest; impugned order modified; appeal disposed of with no costs; pending connected miscellaneous petition(s) closed. ¶¶57

P. Palanivel Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the value fixed by the revenue authorities at Rs.87 per square feet for the appellant's land (S.No. 380/18, Nadukuppam Village) and the resulting deficit stamp duty demand was sustainable, given that the impugned order furnished no particulars of how the values of nearby lands were collected.

¶¶50

Court's answer

The impugned order did not furnish any particulars as to how the value of Rs.60-80 per square feet for nearby lands was collected; the valuation exercise therefore lacked support and the fixed value was liable to be modified.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

This Court modified the value fixed by the third respondent from Rs.87 to Rs.60 per square feet, directed the appellant to pay Rs.60 per square feet without interest, and accordingly modified the first respondent's order dated 19.05.2022 confirming the third respondent's order dated 06.12.2017.

¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V.Thamilselvi J.), CMA No. 2489 of 2022 with connected CMP No. 19398 of 2022 (decided 01-07-2025): Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Inspector General of Registration's order dated 19.05.2022 in Na.Ka.4894/N3/2018 confirming the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp)'s order dated 06.12.2017 in Ce.Pa.No.333/17-18, which fixed the value of the appellant's 2 acres 24 cents agricultural punjai land in S.No. 380/18, Nadukuppam Village (sale deed Document No.1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017, Sub Registrar's office Marakkanam) at Rs.87/- per square feet under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, with a deficit stamp duty demand of Rs.5,64,761/-. Finding that the impugned order furnished no particulars as to how Rs.60-80 per square feet for nearby lands had been collected, the Court modified the valuation to Rs.60 per square feet and directed the appellant to pay that rate without interest; the appeal was disposed of with no costs and pending connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-07-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶7

AND

¶8

CMP NO. 19398 OF 2022

¶9

P. Palanivel S/o. Parasurama Gounder, No. 158, 15th Avenue, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District. 603 102.

¶10

Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

The Inspector General of Registration No. 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶13

2.The Additional Inspector General (Guideline Value) No. 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶14

3.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) Collectorate, Cuddalore - 607 001.

¶15

4.The District Registrar (Administration)

¶16

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

¶17

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶18

Tindivanam - 604 001.

¶19

5.The Sub - Registrar Marakkanam - 604 303.

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶22

PRAYER

¶23

To against the Order passed by the 1st respondent dated 19.05.2022 in Na.Ka.4894/N3/2018 confirming the Order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.12.2017 in Ce.Pa.No.333/17-18 in respect of sale deed Document No.1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017 at the office of the Sub Registratrar , Marakkanam.

¶24

CMA No. 2489 of 2022 For Appellant(s): M/s. R. Thiyagarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Sathish Govt.Advocate For Rr 1 To 5

¶25

JUDGEMENT

¶26

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Order passed

¶27

by the 1st respondent dated 19.05.2022 in Na.Ka.4894/N3/2018 confirming the

¶28

Order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.12.2017 in Ce.Pa.No.333/17-18 in respect

¶29

of sale deed Document No.1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017 at the office of the Sub

¶30

Registrar, Marakkanam.

¶31

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

¶32

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶33

The appellant herein purchased land with an extent of 2 acres 24 cents

¶34

in S. No. 380/18 in Nadukuppam Village falling within the Sub Registrar's office, Marakkanam and the sale deed was registered in document No. 1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017. Subsequently, the respondent inspected the said property and fixed the value of the property as Rs.87/- per square feet and directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,64,761/- as deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved with additional stamp duty the appellant filed the appeal before the first respondent, who passed the order on 19.05.2022.

¶35

Challenging the order dated 19.05.2022 the appellant filed this appeal.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein has purchased land with an extent of 2 acres 24 cents in S.No. 380/18 in Nadukuppam Village falling within the Sub Registrar's office, Marakkanam and the sale deed was registered in document No. 1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017, and

¶37

thereafter, under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act for determining the

¶38

value of the said property third respondent has inspected the said property and passed order without affording opportunity to the appellant and fixed Rs.87 per square feet as value of the property without any records. Further the respondents

¶39

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

¶40

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶41

passed the order without ascertaining the market value of the said agriculture

¶42

land as such is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Hence, he prays to allow this appeal.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader submits that after giving proper

¶44

notice, revenue officials inspected the said land and also taking into consideration of the surrounding areas assessed the value of the property. Further, he pointed out that the land situated nearby the residential areas hence the revenue officials rightly fixed the value of the land. Therefore, he raised

¶45

objection to allow this appeal.

¶46

Considering the submissions on either side, the facts reveal that on the

¶47

date of purchase of the land there were 45 coconut trees in the said land. As per

¶48

the recitals of the sale deed, the appellant purchased 2 acres 24 cents Agriculture

¶49

punjai land in S.No. 380/18 but in the impugned order the revenue official has

¶50

not furnished any particulars as to how they collected Rs. 60-80 per square feet

¶51

as value of the property for the nearby lands and also there is proof produced on

¶52

the side of the respondent that the proper notice was served on the appellant.

¶53

Considering the above, this Court is inclined to modify the value of the property

¶54

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

¶55

CMA No. 2489 of 2022

¶56

fixed by the third respondent from Rs.87 to Rs.60 per square feet. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.60 per square feet without any interest. Therefore, order passed by the 1st respondent dated 19.05.2022 in Na.Ka.4894/N3/2018 confirming the Order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.12.2017 in Ce.Pa.No.333/17-18 in respect of sale deed Document No.1144/2017 dated 19.06.2017 at the office of the Sub Registratrar , Marakkanam, is modified.

¶57