AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.
No.","Document
No.","Date of
Registration","Original Value Stated in the
document / Rs.","Value fixed by R-2
/ Rs.","Balance Payable towards deficit stamp
duty/ Rs.
1.,853/2013,16.09.2013,"18,75,000/-","3,41,45,064/-","22,58,655/-
2.,854/2013,17.09.2013,"10,00,000/-","1,82,10,708/-","12,04,750/-
arriving at the provisional market value:,,,,,
(a) In the case of lands:,,,,,
(i) classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like;",,,,,
(ii) classification under various tarams 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",,,,,
available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pumpsets;",,,,,
(viii) the nature of crops raised on the land. Rule 5(b) relates to house sites and Rule 5(c) relates to buildings.,,,,,
.......,,,,,
.... It is clear from Rule 5 that with reference to agricultural lands, the matters to be taken into account include the average yield",,,,,
from the land, nearness to road and market distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation",,,,,
and the nature of crops raised on the land in addition to the valuation of the adjacent lands. If there is no sale deed available to show,,,,,
the value of the adjacent lands in the vicinity, that cannot prevent the court from fixing the value on the basis of the other matters",,,,,
referred to in the rule. It is open to the petitioners to let in evidence with regard to the other matters mentioned in Rule 5(a).""",,,,,
(ii) Contending that registration of documents by the Registrar precedes reference to the Collector and the Registrar cannot refuse,,,,,
registration and that the Registrar is expected to refer the documents under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1949, the",,,,,
decision reported in 2007 (5) CTC 737 (G.Karmegam v. The Joint Sub Registrar IV, Madurai) is relied upon:-",,,,,
Registration of document is a sine qua non for referring the matter to the Collector, if the registering officer believes",,,,,
that the property is undervalued. No jurisdiction has been conferred on the registering officer to refuse registration, even",,,,,
if the document is undervalued. Besides, there is no authority for him to call upon the person concerned to pay",,,,,
additional stamp duty. Collector is the prescribed authority to determine the market value, after affording a reasonable",,,,,
opportunity of hearing the parties. The registering officer cannot make a roving enquiry to ascertain the correct market,,,,,
value of the property by examining the parties. However, it is expected that he has to give reasons for his conclusion for",,,,,
undervaluation, however short they may be. He can neither delay nor refuse registration of the instrument, merely",,,,,
because the document does not reflect the real market value of the property. In order to reach a conclusion, there is no",,,,,
bar for the registering officer to gather information from other sources, including official or public record. Valuation",,,,,
guidelines, prepared by the revenue officials periodically, are intended with an avowed object of assisting the registering",,,,,
officer to find out prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instrument has been set forth correctly.""",,,,,
(iii) Placing a contention that the onus is on the Revenue to show that the market value set forth in the document is not proved, the",,,,,
decision reported in 2009 (1) CTC 698 (Ezhilarasi and another Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road,",,,,,
Chennai and others) is relied upon:-,,,,,
On a reading of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules and the decisions of the Court as stated",,,,,
above, it is clear that the guideline value, which forms the main plank of the Department''s contention in this case, is only",,,,,
a guiding factor to ascertain the market value prima facie, if there is a doubt that the market value has not been truly set",,,,,
forth in the instrument. It has been clearly stated by the Apex Court that guideline value is not a final authority on the,,,,,
market value of the property. The Department will have to go by the various parameters set down in the Rules for,,,,,
determination of the market value if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been,,,,,
truly set forth in the instrument. In other words the data land which is sought to be compared in this case should contain,,,,,
details which will throw light as to how the data land, its nature, extent and value is comparable to that of the property",,,,,
which is subject matter of registration. The onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property,,,,,
has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document,,,,,
tendered for registration. In the present case, the main plank of the Department appears to be the guideline value and",,,,,
that too it is of the year 2000. The date of presentation in both the cases is of the year 1998. Therefore, taking the",,,,,
guideline value of the year 2000 may not be justified, in view of the Apex Court''s decision in State of Rajasthan &",,,,,
others v. - Khandaka Jain Jewellers reported in 2008(1) CTC 60,. Further, the Department has proceeded on the",,,,,
guideline value, which is not final as held by the apex Court in R.Sai Bharathi vs. - J.Jayalalitha and others (2003 (4)",,,,,
L.W. 825) cited supra. It is only a prima facie material for determination of the true market value.""",,,,,
7.2. It is nowhere stated in the counter that before inspection of the property, summons were issued to the appellant giving",,,,,
opportunity to him to justify his claim that the value stated in the document is correct. It is stated in the counter that the agent of the,,,,,
appellant was present. Nothing further has been stated to show that what were the materials placed by the agent or objections raised,,,,,
by the agent or the request made by the agent, while noting the physical features of the property and while making assessment of the",,,,,
property.,,,,,
7.3. In the Inspection report it is stated that, in the disputed property, 9 acres and 37 ? cents lie as a contiguous zone and there are",,,,,
no houses in it and it is only a place shrouded with bushy thorns. It is also stated that there is no demarcation as house sites.,,,,,
7.4. Under such circumstances, it is not known how the property could be treated as a house-site and stamp duty can be claimed",,,,,
fixing the value at Rs.900/- per sq.mt., (Rs.83.61 per sq.ft.,).",,,,,
7.5. It is also not explained by the respondents how the property under dispute has been valued at Rs.900/- per sq.mt., when the",,,,,
valuation in the adjacent lands in Survey Nos.44, 45, 48 and 49 has been valued only at Rs.28/- per sq.ft., It is also relevant to point",,,,,
out that this valuation has been done only on 10.02.2016.,,,,,
7.6. Except stating that the property is situated in the prime locality and it is a residential area, no other reason has been stated by the",,,,,
respondents. These reasons could be applicable to the adjacent lands also, which are in Survey Nos.44, 45, 48 and 49, where the",,,,,
properties have been valued at Rs.28/- per sq.ft., Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and the value has been fixed without",,,,,
taking note of the factors which had to be taken into account, in accordance with Rule 5 of the said Rules.",,,,,
In view of the above, the order, dated 03.03.2016, passed by the first respondent, in his proceedings in Pa.Mu.No.9228/N-5/2015, confirming",,,,,
the order of the second respondent passed in his proceedings in Mu.Sa.X1/1937/13 and Mu.Sa.X1/1938/13, dated 30.12.2014 and 21.07.2014,",,,,,
are set-aside.,,,,,
8.1. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent with directions to: (a) take into account the value fixed in respect of,,,,,
Survey Nos.44, 45, 48 and 49; (b) also take into account Document Nos.69 and 70 of 2016, registered on 10.02.2016, each for a",,,,,
sum of Rs.32,200/-; (c) follow Rule 5 of the said Rules, and (d) follow the dictum laid down in the judgments referred to supra and",,,,,
(e) to fix the value within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.,,,,,
8.2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed.",,,,,
8.3. Since this Court has set-aside the impugned orders, the amounts deposited by the appellant at 30% (as per the interim direction",,,,,
of this Court), viz., Rs.6,77,576/- in respect of Document No.853 and Rs.3,61,425/-, in respect of Document No.854, shall be",,,,,
refunded to the appellant herein or shall be adjusted towards the stamp duty payable by the appellant, if any.",,,,,