R RAJALAKSHMI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, made in an appeal under S.47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to Tamil Nadu. The main complaint of the petitioners is that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the Tahsildar, who submitted a report as to the valuation of the land, had followed the guidelines contained in the Rules framed by the Government which Rules are called Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968. The relevant rule is found in R.5. R.5, to the extent to which it is relevant, reads thus - "Principles for determination of market value : The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional market value: (a) In the case of lands - (i) classification of the land as dry, manawari, wet and the like; (ii) classification under various terms in the settlement register and accounts; (iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification; (iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question; (v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which requires special consideration; (vi) value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity; (vii) average yield from the land, nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pumpsets. (viii) the nature of crops raised on the land." R.5(b) relates to house sites and R.5(c) relates to buildings. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the land in question is an agricultural land and that it is not a house site. But the Revenue Divisional Officer has proceeded to value the same treating it as a house site. The Revenue Divisional Officer has in his order stated that the land is situated at a higher level of 5 feet at the tail end of the tank in Srivilliputtur. It is situated adjacent to the petitioner's saw mill. The Revenue Divisional Officer has, therefore, drawn an inference that the land has been purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of expansion of his saw mill. This has been denied by the petitioner in his statements before the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as in the appeal before the Subordinate Judge. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the land was purchased for the purpose of expansion of the saw mill. There is no warrant to assume that the land is a house site.

(2.) It is seen from the Tahsildar's report that there is one well in the land and that an extent of 50 cents of the land is liable for submersion. That means nearly one-third of the land is liable for submersion with the tank water. The Tahsildar has taken into account the sale of an adjacent land in T.S.No. 3 of an extent of 3253 sq.ft Obviously that sale related to a house site. It is contended rightly by learned counsel for the petitioners that no reliance can be placed on the sale of the house site though it is situated adjacent to the land in question. Hence the valuation fixed by the Tahsildar at Rs. 539 per cent is also erroneous.

(3.) It is seen from the Tahsildar's report that the land in question is cultivated with dry crops only. The learned Government Advocate relies upon the admission in the memorandum of grounds filed by the petitioners before the learned Subordinate Judge. In ground No. 8, it is stated that the land was not cultivated for the last three faslis. But the same ground states that it could not be cultivated because of drought and as there was no water, the land could not be cultivated. That would not mean that there is an admission on the part of the petitioners that the land is not a cultivable land. It is clear from the 'Tahsildar' report that the land is cultivable and it has been cultivated with dry crops.