Back
2012(2) JLJ 321
Sujoy Paul, J.
Ramjilal Kulshrestha v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No.4542 of 2011 (Gwalior); Decided on 10.4.2012.
Held : In the present case, a duly constituted committee under rule 4 has considered various relevant ingredients and aspects for the purpose of valuation of the market value of the land in question and thereafter the said committee which was consisting of heads of 12 departments including two members of the non-Government service, one local MLA and the President of District Panchayat, worked under the supervision of Collector, District Gwalior. The said committee considered the relevant aspects and gave its report to the Collector, which ultimately took shape in issuance of Annexure P-3. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid analysis, I am unable to hold that there is any flaw in decision making process and "due process" was not followed.The petitioner is unable to show any mandatory provision which has been violated or any violation which has an impact of rendering Annexure P-3 as illegal.[Para12
Thus, I find no reason to interfere in an executive act of fixing the market value of land/property. The petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. (1999)7 SCC 314, (2006)8 SCC 502, (2007)8 SCC 705, 2010(3) MPLJ 29 and 2010(1) MPHT 121 distinguished.
[Para 20
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- issue not raised in writ petition -- cannot be raised in argument. (2010)11 SCC 433 followed. [Para 14
(3) Practice -- executive act of fixing the market value of land/property -- no violation of any mandatory or statutory provision made -- interference cannot be made merely on the basis of another possible view. (2005)5 SCC 181 and (2002)3 SCC 496 followed. [Para 19
(4) Words and Phrases -- words "as far as possible" -- show the words not prohibitory in nature -- rather connote a discretion vested in prescribed authority. (1998)7 SCC 654 followed. "Judicial Dictionary" by Justice L.P. Singh and P.K. Majumdar (Orient Publication) relied on. [Paras 7 & 8
¼1½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 75 lgifBr /kkjk 47d & e-iz- cktkj ewY; ekxZn‘kZd fl)karks dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 & fu-5 rFkk 10 & fu;e 5 dh Hkk"kk izd`fr esa funs‘kkRed & dyDVj bldk vkKkid fu;e dh Hkk¡fr vuqlj.k djus ds fy, vkc) ugha & blfy,] fofu‘p; djus dh izfdz;k Bhd dze esa ikbZ xbZ & gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk A vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izLrqr ekeys esa] fu;e 4 ds v/khu lE;d~ :i ls xfBr lfefr us iz‘uxr Hkwfe ds cktkj ewY; ds ewY;kadu ds iz;kstu ds fy, fofHkUu lqlaxr vo;oksa rFkk igyqvksa ij fopkj fd;k rFkk rRi‘pkr~ mDr lfefr us] tks xSj&ljdkjh lsok ds nks lnL;ksa] ,d LFkkuh; fo/kku lHkk ds lnL; rFkk ftyk iapk;r ds v/;{k lfgr 12 foHkkxksa ds iz/kkuksa ls cuh Fkh] dyDVj] ftyk Xokfy;j ds i;Zos{k.k ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k A mDr lfefr us lqlaxr igyqvksa ij fopkj fd;k rFkk dyDVj dks viuh fjiksVZ nh] tks varr% mikca/k ih&3 ds :i esa tkjh gqbZ A bl izdkj] iwoksZDr fo‘ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij] eSa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ gw¡ fd fofu‘;; djus dh izfdz;k esa dksbZ =qfV gS rFkk ^^lE;d~ izfdz;k** dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;k A ;kph ,slk dksbZ vkKkid mica/k] ftldk vfrdze.k gqvk gks] ;k ,slk dksbZ vfrdze.k] ftlds izHkko ls mikca/k ih&3 voS/k gks tkrk gks] nf‘kZr djus esa vleFkZ gS A ¼iSjk 12 bl izdkj] Hkwfe@laifRr dk cktkj ewY; fu;r djus ds dk;Zikyd dk;Z esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha ikrk gw¡ A ;kfpdk lkj jfgr gS rFkk ,rn~)kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS A ¼1999½7 ,l lh lh 314] ¼2006½8 ,l lh lh 502] ¼2007½8 ,l lh lh 705] 2010¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 29 rFkk 2010¼1½ ,e ih ,p Vh 121 izHksfnr A ¼iSjk 20 ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & fjV ;kfpdk esa ugha mBk;k x;k fook|d & cgl esaa ugha mBk;k tk ldrk A ¼2010½11 ,l lh lh 433 vuqlfjr A ¼iSjk 14 ¼3½ izFkk & Hkwfe@laifRr dk cktkj ewY; fu;r djus dk dk;Zikfyd dk;Z & fdlh vkKkid ;k dkuwuh mica/k dk vfrdze.k ugha fd;k x;k & vU; laHko n`f"Vdks.k ds vk/kkj ek= ij gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk A ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 181 rFkk ¼2002½3 ,l lh lh 496 vuqlfjr A ¼iSjk 19 ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; & ‘‘kCn ^^;FkklaHko** & ‘‘kCnksa dk izd`fr esa izfr"ks/kkRed gksuk nf‘kZr ugha djrs gS & cfYd fofgr izkf/kdkjh esa fufgr foosdkf/kdkj dk ladsr djrs gS A ¼1998½7 ,l lh lh 654 vuqlfjr A U;k;ewfrZ ,y-ih- flag rFkk ih-ds- etwnkj ¼vksfj;UV izdk‘ku½ )kjk ^^tqMhf‘k;y fMD‘kujh** voyafcr A ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 8
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.3.2011, Annexure P-3, whereby the Collector and Chairman, District Valuation Committee has fixed the guidelines for the purpose of determination of the market value of the land.
2. The petitioner, who owns land in village Badagaon, Morar, Gwalior, is interested to sell the land by developing it. As per the contention of Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel, the market value is to be fixed as per the procedure prescribed in Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “2000 Rules”). These rules are made in exercise of powers conferred by section 75 read with section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Stamp Act”). Shri Bharadwaj has attacked the validity of Annexure P-3 on following grounds :
(i) As per rule 5 of 2000 Rules, the Collector is obliged to take into account various factors for determining the market value whereas before issuing Annexure P-3 those mandatory ingredients were not taken into account.
(ii) As per rule 10 of 2000 Rules, the petitioner was not heard and his representation Annexure P-2 was not decided before issuance of Annexure P-3.
3. To elaborate, learned senior counsel submits that 2000 Rules are made under the Stamp Act and, therefore, the same are statutory, mandatory and binding in nature. He submits that if some thing is prescribed in the Statute and to be done in a proper manner, it has to be done strictly in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. He submits that Collector has failed to fix the market value after taking into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in rule 5 aforesaid. He placed reliance on following judgments :
(a) (1999)7 SCC 314 (Union of India v. Indian Charge Chrome);
(b) (2006)8 SCC 502 (T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member);
(c) (2007)8 SCC 705 (Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd.);
(d) 2010(3) MPLJ 29 (Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital v. State of M.P.);
(e) AIR 2011 SCW 5636 (Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration);
(f) 2010(1) MPHT 121 (Rajkumar Jain v. Savitri Devi); and
(g) 1989 MPJR HC 71 (G.L. Saxena v. State of M.P.).
4. Second ground of attack on Annexure P-3 is by placing reliance on rule 10 of 2000 Rules. Shri Bharadwaj submits that as per said rule it is mandatory for the committee constituted under section 4, to serve notice and record statements of persons whereas in the present case the petitioner has not been heard. He submits that this runs contrary to principles of natural justice. By placing reliance on rule 11 it is further stated that if a representation is preferred against the rates shown for market value guidelines, the issue needs to be referred to the committee specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 4.
5. Per contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar supported the order Annexure P-3. She submits that the procedure prescribed in section 47A of Stamp Act read with 2000 Rules was followed in letter and spirit. By filing the documents and placing the original record for the perusal of this Court, the stand of the State Government is that there is no shift from the prescribed procedure and no case is made out for interference by this Court. It is further stated that fixation of market value is essentially an executive act in which interference can be made only if there is any statutory violation. Since there is no statutory violation, it is prayed that no interference be made.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is profitable to quote relevant portion of rule 5 of 2000 Rules as under :
“5. Principle of determination of market value. -- The Collector shall as far as possible have also regard to the following points in arriving at [**] market value --
(a) the case of land --
(i) Classification of the land as dry, or wet and the like;
(ii) Classification under various categ
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
