Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Ponnavolu Sasidar - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar - Respondent
W.P.No.10599/91 etc.
Decided On : 10-09-91
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. E. Manohar
Held : An enquiry under sub rule (3) of the, A.P. Stamp [Prevention Of under valuation of Instruments] Rules, 1975 is not only mandatory but it also facilitates correct assessment of the value in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Sub-rule [3] of Rule 3 is complimentary to Sec.47-A and is meant to be a step-in-aid for reaching the satisfaction whether the market value or consideration has been correctly furnished in the instrument. It provides for an enquiry to be made for this purpose. The registering Officer is expressly empowered to call for any relevant information from the parties and he can also call for and examine any records kept with a public officer. Whenever the registering Officer entertains a doubt about the correctness of the valueor consideration stated in the document, it is incumbent on the part of the registering authority to make an enquiry either by examining the parties or by gathering information from other sources including the Official or public record. The Expression may occurring in sub-rule [3] of Rule 3 confers on the Registering Officer a power coupled with the duty.
The expression reason to believe employed in Sec. 47-A has been advisedly used by the Legislature in order to prevent arbitrary reference to the Collector without any material before the registering authority. The employment of the words reason to believe serves an important check or limitation on the exercise of the power by the registering authority whether the registering authority exercises administrative or quasi judicial function.
In this case, there is a scope for genuine doubt or controversy on the true nature of the land notwithstanding what has been mentioned in the basic value register. In such a situation, it is incumbent on the part of the registering authority to form a belief as envisaged by Sec. 47-A of the Stamp Act only after holding an enquiry in whatever form it, may be under sub Rule [3] of Rule 3. As this has not been done and the documents have been straightaway referred to the Collector the impugned action of the 1st respondent is illegal and contrary to law.
( 1 ) THE action of the Sub- Registrar, Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District the 1st respondent in not registering the sale-deeds dated 1-8-1991 executed in favour of the petitioners by the General Power of Attorney holders of the owners of the land and in keeping the registrations pending on the ground that the documents do not bear sufficient stamp duty, is being challenged in this batch of writ petitions.
( 2 ) THE subject-matter of conveyance in the sale-deeds in these writ petitions is parcels of vacant land ranging between two and half acres and three acres situate in Survey Nos. 8 and 9 of Mansoorabad village, Saroornagar Mandal of Rangareddy District. In the documents the land sought to be transferred is described as agricultural land. The sale price mentioned in the document is Rs. 65,000/- per acre. According to the petitioners, when the sale-deeds were presented for registration on 1-8-1991, the 1st respondent refused to register the same and informed the petitioners that as per the extant instructions, the sale-deeds can be registered only if the property is valued as house sites at Rs. 120/- per square yard. The documents were treated as pending documents. The petitioners have, therefore filed the writ petitions.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that in the revenue records, the land in question is classified as dry lands and dry crops and fodder grass are being grown on the lands. The petitioners say that there are two wells irrigating the lands. According to the petitioners, lands are quite far away from the village and there are no residential houses in and around S. Nos. 8 and 9. It is stated that the land has been reserved for conservation use by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
( 4 ) BY A. P. Act 22 of 1971, Section 47 was inserted in the Indian Stamp Act and this amendment was brought into effect from 16-8-1975. Section 47-A was further amended by A. P. Act 17 of 1986. Section 47-A provides that if the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of any instrument of conveyance, gift, partition, etc. , has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of market value of such property and proper duty payable thereon. Though the virus of Section 47-A has also been challenged, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that for the time being he does not propose to advance any argument on the question of virus and that the said question may be left open. His main contention is that the 1st respondent without applying his mind to the relevant facts and without exercising his independent discretion in the matter, is insisting upon the stamp duty to be paid by arbitrarily adopting the valuation of Rupees 120/- per square yard applicable to the house sites in the locality. The learned Counsel submits that the registering officer has not made any enquiry to satisfy himself about the nature and value of the land but he is presumably following administrative instructions issued by the superior authorities in this behalf.
( 5 ) I have given notice to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and called for the record of the 1st respondent s office. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.
( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A. P. , 1989 (3) ALT 677 and submitted that the 1st respondent sent the twelve pending documents to the District Registrar, Ranga-reddy District who is designated as Collector under the Indian Stamp Act for the purpose of determination of duty under S. 47-A inasmuch as he felt that having regard to the value in the basic value register , the documents are grossly under-valued. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the judgment of this Court in the aforementioned case, the ba
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
