Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 157
2009 (II) OLR — 65
I.M. QUDDUSI AND SANJU PANDA, JJ.
Guru Prasad Mohanty & another...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & others...Opp. Parties
Kailash Sahu...Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & others...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) Nos. 14801 & 18315 of 2008
Decided on 30th April, 2009.
For Petitioners:M/s. Budhadev Routray, D.K. Mohapa¬tra, B.B. Routray, D. Routray, S. Jena, D. Mohapatra, P.K. Sahoo
For Opp. Parties:Addl. Government Advocate
Headnote:INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899 - Sec. 47-A - Orissa Stamp Rules - Rule 40(2) - Fixed Bench Mark valuation - Fixation of - Instruction of I.G.R. dated 5.8.08 and 20.8.08 regarding fixation of valuation challenged in writ - Discussing the facts, contention and provisions of law held, the Bench mark valuation was not fixed by the Committee till the year 2008 - If the Committee has not revised the bench mark valuation after expiry of the two years period, the Collector can enhance the value by 10% of the value prior to two yeas - Held, the orders of I.G.R. dated 5.8.2008 and 20.8.2008 were not passed in accordance with the statutory provisions - Impugned orders quashed.
As per Rule 40(2) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, in case the Committee fails to revise the valuation, the Collector as Chairman would enhance the value by ten per cent of the value so fixed. Rule 41 of the Orissa Stamp Rules provides or modalities to fix the market value of the property by the Committee taking into account the principle mentioned in Appendix II and such other instructions issued/to be issued by the Government from time to time. Appendix II to the Rules provides the principle for determination of market value taking into consideration the facts, i.e., types of lands, value of adjacent land in the vicin¬ity, nature of crops raised in a year and average yield from the land, proximity to road, railway station, village and market, facilities available for irrigation, pump sets and the level of land, etc.
The guidelines were prepared as instructed by the Board of Revenue and revised from time to time and also by the IGR as provided in Rule 47. The guidelines were intended for assisting the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set forth in the instrument had been correctly made or not. However, those were not intended as a substitute for the market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make as per Section 47-A of the Act or the market value has to be determined by the District Level Valuation Com¬mittee.
It is the common knowledge that the value of the property varies from place to place or even from locality to locality. No absolute higher or minimum value can be pre-determined. It would depend on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the instrument is situate. It will be only an objective satisfaction that the Authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued or considera¬tion mentioned, when it is presented for registration. The ulti¬mate decision would be with the Collector subject to the decision on an appeal before the prescribed authority.
JUDGMENT
S. PANDA, J. — Since common questions are involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being dis¬posed of by this common judgment.
2. Challenge has been made in these writ petitions to the instructions dated 5.8.2008 and 20.8.2008 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Orissa, Cuttack (in short “IGR”) regard¬ing fixation of market value of the land while the Sub-Registrar registering the documents for the purpose of transfer of proper¬ty, as without jurisdiction and inconsistent with the Indian Stamp Act and the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 (in short, “the Act and Rules”).
3. The petitioners for the purpose of registration of documents disclosed the valuation of the property before the Registering Authority to facilitate payment of proper stamp duty. The Registering Authority did not accept their documents on the ground that the valuation of the property as disclosed by the petitioner was at a lower rate than the fixed Bench Mark valua¬tion. Accordingly, it fixed the valuation at a higher rate. The petitioners challenged the fixation of Bench Mark Valuation as per the instructions issued by the IGR as arbitrary, contrary to the jurisdiction given to the Registering Authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act which was inserted by the Indian Stamp (Orissa Amendment) Act, 2008 and the Rules thereunder, ab initio void and liable to be quashed.
4. The District Level Valuation Committee fixed the bench mark valuation in respect of the properties located in 1350 villages under five tahasils of Bhadrak district, namely, Bha¬drak, Tihidi, Dhamnagar, Bhondari Pokhari and Bonth and referred it to the Government for approval. The Government approved the same on 11.7.2006 which was implemented by the committee in a resolution passed on 7.8.2006 and the said decision of the com¬mittee came into force with effect from 25.8.2006. Thereafter, the District Sub-Registrar, Bhadrak on 29.8.2006 also issued a letter to all Sub-Registrars of the Districts to implement the said bench mark valuation regarding valuation of the property presented for registration.
5. While the matter stood thus, after expiry of two years period, the IGR on 19.6.2008 issued instructions to all the Collectors to ensure revision/enhancement of the existing valua¬tion by 10% as required under Rule 40(2) of the Orissa Stamp Rules. He also issued another instruction regarding fixation of valuation on 5.8.2008 directing all the District Sub-Registrars that the bench mark valuation is only an “indicative” value below which documents registered will be construed as undervalued and there is, however, no bar on accepting documents above that of the bench mark valuation. It was further clarified therein that once a higher valuation (above bench mark valuation) is accepted, that higher value would be the new bench mark for any/all future transactions. Further, he issued another letter on 20.8.2008 stating therein that if the value of a particular plot under the category in Bench Mark Valuation Report is enhanced by the vendor then that enhanced value becomes the value for all the plots in that category.
6. For better appreciation, the contents of the instruc¬tions dated 5.8.2008 and 20.8.2008 respectively are extracted below:
“BOARD OF REVENUE: ORISSA : CUTTACK
(REGISTRATION WING)
xxx xxx xxx
Sub: Acceptance of document valued more than that of Bench Mark.
Sir,
Doubt have arisen over the question of accepting Registration Documents at a value higher than that of the Bench Mark Valuation (BMV). This issue was clarified in the monthly review meeting of May, 2008. It is reiterated that the BMV is only an “indicative” value below which documents registered will be construed as undervalued. There is, however, no bar on accepting documents above that of the BMV. It is further clarified that once a higher valuation (above BMV) is accepted, that higher value will be the new bench mark for any/all future transactions.
This may be cir
