IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
Prashant Kumar Mahensaria - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6440 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2019
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47(A) (ii) – Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 – Rule 5 – Registration of sale-deed – Purchase of agricultural plot – Minimum valuation register, as prescribed under Rules 5 and 6 of Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995, does not prescribe any rate in category of irrigated/ agricultural land of Nagar Panchayat – There is no categorization of land in question, as to whether land is irrigated/ agricultural land or urban land or non-agricultural land or commercial land – There has been neither any fixation of estimated market value of plot in question nor there has been any categorisation of irrigated/ agricultural plots of Nagar Panchayat – Impugned order is cryptic and does not show any application of mind by Assistant Inspector General (Registration) in declaring that there is deficit stamp duty which is recoverable from petitioner – Impugned order set aside and District Magistrate-cum- Collector, directed to act in terms of Rule 6 of Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 and fix estimated minimum value of land in question along with other irrigated/ agricultural category land of Nagar Panchayat as also define category of land in question belonging to petitioner for which sale deed has been presented by petitioner for registration before respondent authorities. (Paras 7 to 9)
JUDGMENT :
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 to register and release the registered copy of the sale deed dated 12.03.2014 received vide token no. 1129, issued by the respondent no.4, for quashing the order dated 27.01.2016 issued by the respondent Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Munger Division, Munger (hereinafter referred to as "AIG") in Stamp Case No. 15/ 2015 in a proceeding under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act as well as for directing the respondent no.3 for inclusion of rates for irrigated/agricultural category of land in the Minimum Valuation Register (MVR) under Rule 5 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 pertaining to Nagar Panchayat, Gogri, Jamalpur and for declaring that in absence of an entry of rates specified in the MVR for irrigated/ agricultural lands for Nagar Panchayat Gogri, Jamalpur, the respondents cannot draw benefit of such absence in the MVR and recover stamp duty and registration charges at higher rates from the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased a plot being irrigated/ agricultural at MauzaJamalpur, Thana No. 309/1, Nagar Panchayat, Gogri, Ward No. 12, Khata No. 80, Kheshra No. 236, 237, 238 and 239 ad measuring 157.00 decimals. The said land was purchased by the petitioner from Basudev Pansari & Ors. The petitioner had declared the value of land in the sale deed as Rs. 23,70,000/-, by adopting the rates of irrigated/agricultural land mentioned in the MVR pertaining to Mauza-Jamalpur and had then presented the sale deed for registration before the respondent no.4 on 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the District Sub-Registrar, Khagaria by a letter dated 22.02.2014 had called for a report from the Circle Officer, Gogri regarding Khesra number in question to the effect as to whether the said land was residential or not. The Circle Officer, Gogri by his letter dated 05.03.2014 had written to the District Sub-Registrar, Khagaria stating that the aforesaid land in question was inspected by the Halka-Karmchari and Incharge Circle Inspector and it has been found that the said land is an irrigated/agricultural land. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 is said to have verbally informed the petitioner that the stamp duty totalling to a sum of Rs. 1,89,600/- shall be payable for registration of the sale deed in question, whereafter the petitioner duly paid the said amount by way of stamp duty as also the registration charges, however, the sale deed was then not provided to the petitioner herein, whereupon the petitioner approached the respondent no.4, who intimated him that the matter has been referred to the respondent no.2 under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Subsequently, a notice dated 31.03.2014 was issued by the AIG, Munger Division, Munger to the petitioner herein, initiating a proceeding under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for recovery of deficit stamp duty amounting to a sum of Rs.25,01,868/-. The petitioner had then appeared before the respondent no.2, however, neither any hearing was conducted nor any enquiry, as contemplated under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was conducted, but instead the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 was passed by the respondent no.2 in Stamp Case No. 15/2015 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.2, relying upon the report of the Registration Officer, treating the aforesaid land to be under the Nagar Panchayat, Ward No.12 and not relying upon the report of the Circle Officer dated 05.03.2014, fixed the deficit amount of stamp duty, recoverable from the petitioner, as Rs. 25,01,868/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rules 5 and 6 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as the "Rules, 1995") provides that the Collector of the District shall classify the lands of rural or urban area and p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.