Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, UMESH CHANDRA BENERJEE
KAKA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ADDL.COLLECTOR, DIST.MAGISTRATE (F.R.) - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 8110 Of 1981
Decided On : 08/29/1985
STAMP ACT - S. 47-A - R. 341 - Minimum market value - Determination - Collector's power - Scope - Penalty - Imposition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land under two sale deeds. The Sub-Registrar, finding the market value of the land set forth in the sale deeds to be less than the minimum value determined under Rule 341 of the Stamp Act Rules, referred the sale deeds to the Collector for determination of the market value and the proper duty payable. The Collector, applying Rule 341, determined the market value and found the stamp duty payable thereon. The petitioner challenged the Collector's order, contending that Rule 341 was ultra vires and that the Collector had no power to impose a penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 341 was not ultra vires, but was only meant for a limited purpose of providing a guideline for invoking sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The Court further held that the Collector's power under Section 47-A was not confined to Rule 341 and that he could determine the market value of the property to be more than the minimum given in the rules if the evidence before him established it. However, the Court held that the Collector had no power to impose a penalty in the absence of a specific provision in that respect.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 341 of the Stamp Act Rules was ultra vires? 2. Whether the Collector had the power to determine the market value of the property to be more than the minimum given in Rule 341? 3. Whether the Collector had the power to impose a penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 341 was not ultra vires as it was only meant for a limited purpose of providing a guideline for invoking sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. 2. The Collector's power under Section 47-A was not confined to Rule 341 and he could determine the market value of the property to be more than the minimum given in the rules if the evidence before him established it. 3. The Collector had no power to impose a penalty in the absence of a specific provision in that respect.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Collector's order, and sent the case back to the Collector for a fresh determination of the controversy.
( 1 ) THESE four connected writ petitions raise common questions of law, hence, they are being decided by a single judgment. For deciding the points, narration of facts of only one of them namely, Writ No. 8110 of 1980 would be sufficient.
( 2 ) ON 26th June, 1979, the petitioner Kaka Singh, purchased land under two sale deeds one from Har Pawan Jit Singh, r/o Tugalpur in respect of one half share in Khata No. 371 measuring 10 bighas for Rs. 12,000/- and the other from Gurnam Singh and Gurjendra Singh in respect of 10 bighas 17 biswas 10 biswansis of land for Rs. 10500/- These sale deeds were presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar. Finding that the market value of the land which were the subject matter of the two sale deeds, as set forth, was less than even the minimum value, he referred the sale deeds under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable under the said Act. The petitioner filed an objection before the Additional Collector District Stamp officer who issued notice to him. It was stated that the land purchased for the value shown in the sale deeds was proper. It was also asserted that prior to 5th Dec. 1977 the Government price (market value) for the land was Rs. 500/-per bigha. Consequently, R. 341 of the Rules framed by the State of U. P. under S. 75 of the Stamp Act would not be applicable. R. 341 provides that for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, the minimum market value of immovable property referred to in S. 47 A (1) of the Act shall be deemed to be not less than that as on the basis of the multiples given below : (1) Where the subject is land - (a) in case of bhumidhari-800 times the land revenue (b) in case of sirdari land-400 times the land revenue.
( 3 ) BEFORE the Additional Collector, the petitioner examined Kastoorilal, the Lekhpal and one Ranjitsingh. He also filed extracts of trinial Khataunis, showing the price at which the land of the same kind in the vicinity was sold. The Additional Collector repelled the objection of the petitioner by holding that the market value had to be determined at the rate of 800 times of the land revenue under R. 341 of the Rules framed under the Act, as introduced in 1976, vide notification No. 1850/x-500 (1) 75, dt. 21st June, 1976. On the finding arrived at, the Additional Collector, found the following sale deed executed by Har Pawan Jit Singh :"sale deed executed for-Rs. 12,000-00 value of the sale deed determined in accordance with Rule 341-Rs. 25,000-00 stamp duty Rs. 975-00 penalty Rs. 200-00 registration Fees Rs. 130-00 sale deed executed by Gurnam Singh and Gurjendra Singh sale deed executed for rs. 26,500-00 value of the sale deed determined in accordance wit R. 341 Rs. 52,320-00 stamp duty Rs. 2,025-00 penalty Rs. 325-00 registration Fee Rs. 270-00"
( 4 ) AGAINST the judgment of the Additional Collector, the petitioner has come to this Court by means of the present writ.
( 5 ) TO the maintainability of the writ petition a preliminary objection was raised. The same was that as the petitioner could move an application for reference to the Board of Revenue, the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. We would have accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition on that ground but as the petitioner has challenged the validity of R. 341 of the Rules framed under the Stamp Act, we thought it advisable to decide the said question. Board of Revenue has no authority to adjudicate the validity of the rule. It is a creature of the Stamp Act and has only those powers which are conferred by it. It cannot examine the validity of the rule.
( 6 ) S. 47-A was inserted by means of an amendment. The scheme of S. 47-A of the Act is to deal with those cases where private parties by arrangement clandestinely or fraudulently undervalued the property which is the subject matter of transfer with a view t
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
