2011 (12) TMI 738 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of market value for stamp duty purposes.
2. Applicability of guideline value for properties abutting Bharathi Ula Road.
3. Alleged violation of Section 47-A(8) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
4. Consideration of various factors by the Appellate Authority.

Summary:

1. Determination of Market Value for Stamp Duty Purposes:
The appellant purchased 16.13 acres of house sites with 5 old bungalows for Rs. 17,61,00,000/- at Rs. 250/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Registrar fixed the value at Rs. 1,091/- per sq.ft. and referred the matter to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) u/s 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Special Deputy Collector fixed the market value at Rs. 525/- per sq.ft. and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,52,90,432/- towards deficit stamp duty. The appellant's appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was dismissed, confirming the order and directing payment of the deficit stamp duty with interest.

2. Applicability of Guideline Value for Properties Abutting Bharathi Ula Road:
The appellant argued that the guideline value for properties on Bharathi Ula Road should not apply to the subject property, which is larger and undeveloped, with only a negligible portion abutting Bharathi Ula Road. The court noted that the subject property is primarily accessible through Thiruvalluvar Nagar, where the guideline value is Rs. 250/- per sq.ft., and not Bharathi Ula Road.

3. Alleged Violation of Section 47-A(8) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:
The appellant contended that the orders were violative of Section 47-A(8) as they were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court found that the Special Deputy Collector's order did not justify the reasons for fixing the market value at Rs. 525/- per sq.ft. when the guideline value for Thiruvalluvar Nagar was Rs. 250/- per sq.ft.

4. Consideration of Various Factors by the Appellate Authority:
The appellant argued that the Appellate Authority failed to consider factors like location, proximity to roads, amenities, and development activities as provided under Rule 5(b) & (c) of the Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules, 1968. The court observed that the larger extent of the property lies in Thiruvalluvar Nagar and should be valued accordingly.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the first and second respondents. The appellant was directed to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 29,559/- within four weeks. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed with no costs.