The main legal point established in the judgment is that an e-auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act is considered an open market sale and is excluded from the scrutiny under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The court emphasized that the market value of the property in an open market sale is determined by the market itself, and there is no need for further assessment under Section 47A.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - IA No: CAN 1 of 2020 is disposed of in view of the urgency involved and the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. The question which arises in the present writ petition is whether the eauction sale, in which the petitioners purchased the property-inquestion, was an open market sale within the purview of Section 16B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in West Bengal), thus, exempting the instrument of such sale from assessment by the registering officer under the Registration Act, 1908, under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended in West Bengal).

3. Admittedly, the petitioners purchased the property in a public e-auction conducted by the IDBI Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act") for a consideration of Rs.14,01,00,000/-.

4. In view of the Bank not being willing to execute a conveyance in the format suggested by the petitioners, petitioner no.1 filed a suit bearing CS No. 64 of 2018 for declaration and mandatory injunction to approve of the draft conveyance forwarded by the petitioners. In the suit, the Bank agreed to execute the conveyance and the learned Single Judge taking up the suit and connected application directed execution of the conveyance by the Registrar of Assurances.

5. Subsequently, the Registrar claimed that he was entitled to re-evaluate the property. Upon hearing the Registrar, the Trial Judge declined to give any further directions in the suit, since the Registrar was not a party thereto.

6. The petitioners preferred an appeal from the said order. The matter was ultimately referred on a question of law to a Division Bench of this court on August 14, 2020, which observed that the primary question raised regarding the stamp duty payable for such sale was not gone into and the petitioners were left free to avail other remedies.

7. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction on the Registrar of Assurances to accept the value mentioned in the sale certificate issued by the IDBI Bank Limited (respondent no.4), that is, Rs. 14,01,00,000/- and to assess the stamp duty and registration fee accordingly without initiating a fresh enquiry for re-evaluation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites a Special Bench judgment of this court, rendered in State of West Bengal vs. Sati Enclave, (2010) 3 CalHN 651 . In the said case, a question arose whether the provisions contained in Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (As Amended in West Bengal), read with Rule 3 of the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2001, are applicable to an instrument executed pursuant to an order of sale passed by a civil court in a suit for partition, which was conducted by a receiver appointed by the civil court, by auction after publication in newspapers. While deciding the said case, the Special Bench considered V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-Cum-Inspector and others, (2009) 7 SCC 438 . The Special Bench went on to hold that the provisions of Section 47A do not apply to open market sales. The Bench considered Section 2(10) and Section 47A as well as Section 2(16B) of the Stamp Act and held that if the legislature had intended that Section 2(16B) was to apply to open market sales also, the legislature would have made a separate or specific provision regarding determination of the price of the property being sold in open market.

9. Learned counsel argues that the said judgment was rendered on the premise that open market sales are exempted from scrutiny under Section 47A, although, in the particular case, a court sale was under consideration. As such, it is contended that the ratio of the said report cannot be restricted merely to court sales but applies to all open market sales.

10. The Supreme Court, in V.N. Devadoss's case (supra), considered Section 47A and observed that there must