Honble MUKHERJI, C.J.–M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. transferred its factory and other properties situated in the District of Udaipur to M/s JK Udaipur Udhyog Ltd. in the year 1993. M/s JK Udaipur Udhyog the transferee Company submitted an application under section 31 of the Stamp Act before the Collector Stamps, Udaipur alongwith documents for adjudication of the stamp duty which might be payable for such transfer. The Collector Stamps on receipt of the application for adjudication made site inspection of the properties on 17.9.1993 and looking to the bulk magnitude of different properties he gave a notice dated 18.9.1993 to M/s JK Udaipur Ltd. to submit necessary information for determining the market value of the properties which were transferred under various deeds. M/s JK Udaipur Udhyog Ltd. instead of complying with the requirements of the notice dated 18.9.1993 went on requesting for adjournment of hearing from time to time and finally filed an application dated 3.1.1993 by which the adjudication proceedings were sought to be withdrawn. Therefore, three documents were presented for registration at the office of the Sub Registrar, Mavli on 1.12.1993 :–

1. Indenture of conveyance dated 1.12.1993 in respect of building of lease-hold land measuring 400 acres in Tehsil Mavli (valuation dec- lared was Rs. 8,89,28,000=00).

2. Indenture of conveyance dated 1.12.1993 in respect of 14 bighas and 11 biswas of land and building therein in Tehsil Mavli (valuation declared was Rs. 84,49,340=00).

On the aforesaid conveyance the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 88,92,800=00 and Rs. 8,44,939=00, total Rs. 97,37,739=00 through treasury challan.

3. Endorsement by the Collector, Udaipur dated 1.12.93 on certified copy of the lease-deed for 400 acres of land in Tehsil Mavli sent by the Collector, Udaipur for registration (Annual rental value Rs. 9,000=00).

(2). On receipt of the above documents, the Sub Registrar, Mavli addressed letter dated 12.12.93 to the Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Rajasthan seeking his guidance in determining the market value of the properties as the Sub Registrar felt that the valuation of the properties involved required technical expertise. It was also stated by the Sub Registrar that he never had such a case in which the valuation and stamp duty to such a large extent was involved. The Sub Registrar on 17.12.93 also issued a notice to the parties requiring them to furnish information whether any consideration passed between the parties for transfer of the lease-hold rights. The Sub Registrar further issued a notice dated 21.12.93 requiring the parties to furnish certain information as to whether there was any agreement of sale execu- ted between the parties and also asked for the balance-sheet of M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. It was also mentioned that the valuation of the plant and machinery had not been mentioned by any valuer, therefore, itemwise information might be furnished to determine which property would be immovable and which would be treated as movable. The information was required to the furnished by 31.12.1993.

(3). M/s JK Udaipur Ltd. by its letter dated 17.12.93 informed the Sub Registrar, Mavli that no consideration passed for the transfer of the lease-hold rights and submitted an affidavit in support of its contention.

(4). M/s JK Udaipur Udhyog Ltd. addressed another letter to the Sub Registrar in reply to the letter dated 21.12.93 in which it was given out that no specific agree- ment was drawn up in between M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and M/s JK Udaipur Ltd. for sale of the aforesaid buildings and the terms and conditions and consideration thereof were duly recorded in the indenture of conveyance submitted for registration on 1.12.93.

(5). It is the stance taken by the State respondents that the said statement made by JK Udaipur Udhyog Ltd. was not borne out to be true, inasmuch as, by its own documents which it submitted later on, it was proved to be otherwise and that the factum of agreement dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document