Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Agarwal, J.
MAYA FOODS AND VANASPATI LTD., ALLAHABAD - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY (BR), ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 119 Of 1995
Decided On : 10/26/1998
STAMP ACT - SECTION 47A - JURISDICTION OF SUB-REGISTRAR AND COLLECTOR - INTERPRETATION - MARKET VALUE DETERMINATION - POTENTIAL OF LAND - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, by three sale deeds registered in Delhi. The Registrar, Delhi, forwarded copies of the sale deeds to the Registrar, Fatehpur, who made a reference to the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, alleging undervaluation of the property. The Collector determined the market value of the property and demanded additional stamp duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-Registrar and Collector, Fatehpur, had jurisdiction to act in the matter as they became the Registering Officer for certain purposes after the document was received by them in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. The court also held that the Collector was not bound by the value determined under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while determining the market value of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Registrar and Collector, Fatehpur, had jurisdiction to act in the matter. 2. Whether the Collector was bound by the value determined under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while determining the market value of the property. 3. Whether the potential of the land could be considered in determining the market value.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term "Registering Officer" in the Indian Stamp Act includes the Registrar and Sub-Registrar within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the documents have been registered under Section 66 read with 67 of the Registration Act. 2. The Collector is not bound by the value determined under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while determining the market value of the property. 3. The potential of the land as on the date of sale alone can be taken into account in determining the market value, and not what potential it may have in the distant future.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Sub-Registrar and Collector, Fatehpur, had jurisdiction to act in the matter, that the Collector was not bound by the value determined under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while determining the market value of the property, and that the potential of the land as on the date of sale alone could be taken into account in determining the market value.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 14. 11. 94 passed by the respondent No. 1. I. e. . the Chief Controlling Revenue authority, U. P. , whereby it partly allowed the Stamp Revision No. 294 of 1994-95 and remanded the proceedings to the District Stamp Officer for redetermination of the market value of the land.
( 2 ) 1 have heard Sri Sankatha Rai. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjlv Slngh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
( 3 ) THE petitioner M/s. Maya Foods and Vanaspatl Limited purchased land situate in Fatehpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh by three sale deeds dated 8. 1. 93, 11. 1. 93 and 13. 1. 93. The sale deeds were registered at Delhi as the Registration at Delhi was permitted by virtue of Section 30 (2) of the Registration Act, The Registrar, Delhi in compliance with the provisions contained in section 167 of the Registration Act, forwarded the copies of the sale deeds to the Registrar at fatehpur, who was of the opinion that the market value of the property purchased has been under-stated and he made a reference in terms of Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act. 1899 as inserted by U. P. Act No. 11 of 1969 to the Collector. The Collector, after hearing the petitioner, made an order dated 13th of May, 1994, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By this order, the Collector determined the market value of the three sets of property at various rates and held that the stamp duty paid was deficient and ordered the same be realized. It may be mentioned that the copy of the Collectors order Annexure-2 is only in respect of the sale deed dated 8. 1. 1993 in respect of which additional stamp duty of Rs. 9,64,687 was demanded. The copies of the orders passed by the Collector in respect of the other two sale deeds have not been filed.
( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred three Revisions Petition bearing Nos. 294, 295 and 296 of 1994-9 5/fatehpur before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and by the impugned order dated 14. 11. 1994. the said Revisions have been allowed and the orders passed by the Collector on 13. 5. 1994 have been set aside and the case has been remanded to the District Collector Stamp for specific compliance and re-determination of the market value. In para 5 of his order, the learned commissioner observed as under : "5. The third point of the learned counsel regarding the potential of the land, is also not tenable. It is not necessary for the Collector, while evaluating the market value, to be restricted by the order under Section 143. U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The potential of the land is self evident. The intention is undisputed. It has been brought for industrial purpose. Therefore, the Collector is not being arbitrary in deciding the price of the land on the basis of the proposed usage. The likely potential in a reasonable time frame of the land has to be considered in any evaluation of the market price. The District Collector has been more than concessional in his attitude by making two sets of prices i. e. , half area situated closer to the road side having been valued at higher price than the remaining half, which is slightly away from the road side. This is not a very rational exercise of value determination. After having come to the conclusion that the land is to be used for Industrial purpose. The Collector is expected to put a value of the land on the basis non-agricultural and commercial features. "
( 5 ) IN this petition, the petitioner challenged the orders as passed by the Collector as well as by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
( 6 ) THE first point that was quite seriously agitated is whether the Sub-Registrar. Fatehpur could make a reference in terms of Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act. The said section is reproduced as below : "47a. Instruments of conveyance etc. , if undervalued, how to be dealt with.-- (1) if the market value of any property which is
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
