Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.S. Rathore
Shanti Lal - Appellant
Versus
Collector - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3433 of 1990
Decided On : 08/05/2002
Indian Stamp Act - Assessment of Property Value - Section 47A - [Mortgage of Shops, Assessment of Property Value, Violation of Section 47-A] - [Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A] - The court discussed the assessment of property value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It highlighted the importance of examining the value settled by the Civil Court and upheld by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and emphasized that the order of the Collector violated Section 47-A and principles laid down by various High Courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector, Dholpur, assessing the value of mortgaged shops and directing payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector's order violated Section 47-A and principles established by various High Courts, and set aside the order.
Issues: Assessment of property value, Violation of Section 47-A, Alternative efficacious remedy
Ratio Decidendi: The value settled by the Civil Court and upheld by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge should be examined, and the order of the Collector violated Section 47-A and established legal principles.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the Collector was set aside.
K.S. Rathore, J.-This present petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-1989 passed by Collector, Dholpur under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by which the Collector, Dholpur assessed the value of the property as 1.5 lacs and the petitioner is directed to pay the balance stamp duty of Rs. 19,785/-, Registration Fee of Rs. 536 and penalty of Rs. 10/-totaling amount of Rs. 20,331/-.
2. Two shops belongs to Shri Lallu Gopal Singh. These shops were mortgaged in favour of the petitioner by a registered mortgage deed. The mortgage was usufructuary in nature. Possession of both the shops was given to the petitioner by the Mortgagor.
3. Thereafter, these shops were agreed to be sold to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-on 10-5-1959 and also agreed to execute the sale deed. Shri Lallu Gopal Singh has taken Rs, 235/-as an earnest money from the petitioner. Since pursuant to the agreement the registration was not made in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed vide judgment dated 28-7-1965 by Civil Judge. Dholpur and it was directed that Shri Gopal Singh should execute the sale deed of the shops in favour of the petitioner.
4. The order dated 28-7-1965 of Civil Judge, Dholpur has been challenged by Shri Gopal Singh in appeal and same was dismissed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur vide his judgment and decree dated 11-8-1970.
5. The shops were rejected in the name of the petitioner. After taking consideration of Rs. 8,000/-adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,000/-as mortgage money and Rs. 700/-and its interest due to bond of Rs. 23 5/-as earnest money and thus the petitioner made full and final payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,365/-at the time of registration.
6. The matter was referred by the Sub-Registrar, Dholpur to the Collector, Dholpur on the ground that the properties were shown to be sold in the year 1965 for Rs. 8,000/-whereas the registration has been effected on 5-12-1988. In the reference it was also mentioned that the value of the properties as on the date of the registration, which was transferred in the year 1965, is about Rs. 3,09,672/-.
7. TheCollector, Dholpur decided the matter vide its order dated 30-12-1989 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Collector Dholpur while passing the order dated 30-12-1989 has not cared to examine the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act 1899. He also referred the provisions of Section 47-A Sub-rule (1). Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that while deciding the reference made by the Sub-Registerar Dholpur the Collector Dholpur has not cared to examine the judgment passed in the original suit filed by the petitioner wherein the Civil Judge, Dholpur has arrived at this conclusion that the value of the shop was of Rs. 8,000/-and judgment dated 28-7-1965 has been upheld by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge. Dholpur vide its judgment dated 11-8-1970. Pursuant to these judgments the shops were registered in the name of the petitioners.
9. Without considering these facts, the Collector, Dholpur has passed the order dated 30-12-1989 contrary to the provisions of Section 47-A Sub-rule 1 and also contrary to the judgment passed by the Civil Court.
10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that this petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has not availed of the alternative efficacious remedy which was available to him and directly approached to this Court. This petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count alone . Petitioner should have moved before the Board of Revenue prior to filing this writ petition and admittedly the petitioner has not availed of this remedy.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.K. Garg in support of his argument placed reliance on the judgment reported in W.L.C. 2002 (Raj) (UC) 313 Satyam Properties vs. State of Raj
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
