Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 14
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J
Ramprasad and another v. Central Valuation Board and others
Writ Petition No.11039 of 2013 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.1.2016.
Siddharth Gupta for petitioners;
Naman Nagrath with Jubin Prasad for respondents.
Headnote: ¼1½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 29 & e-iz- cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj muds iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 & fu-3¼2½¼[k½ & dh fof/kekU;rk & dkSu vk{ksfir dj ldrk gS & lk/kkj.kr;k & Ñf"k Hkwfe ds foØ; dh fy[kr ij LVkai 'kqYd & Øsrk }kjk Hkqxrku ;ksX; gS Lokeh }kjk ugha & ;kphx.k Ñf"k Hkwfe ds Lokeh }kjk LVkai 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gks ldrk & blfy, mUgsa fu;e 3¼2½¼[k½ dh fof/kekU;rk dk fook|d mBkuk izHkkouh; ugha gS & fQj Hkh mBk, x, iz'u ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 27
¼2½ cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3¼2½¼[k½ & LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 47&d & dsaæh; ewY;kadu cksMZ }kjk cktkj ewY; fu;r djuk & vfHkO;fä ßcktkj ewY;Þ & /kkjk 47d ds lanHkZ esa ßU;wure ewY;Þ i<+k tkuk pkfg, & ßU;wure ewY;Þ vkSj ßcktkj ewY;Þ & mfpr cktkj ewY; ds :i esa le>uk pkfg, tks jftLVªhdj.k izkf/kdkfj;ksa dh jk; esa Hkwfe dks ykxw gksuk pfkg,A ¼iSjk 41 ,oa 43
¼3½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 47d & e-iz- cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 & fu-4 & LVkai ¼e-iz- fy[krksa dk U;wu ewY;kadu fuokj.k½ fu;e] 1975 & fu- 5 & jftLVªhdj.k izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk voèkkfjr ßcktkj ewY;Þ vkSj ewY;kadu lfefr }kjk fofufnZ"V ßU;wu ewY;Þ ds chp varj & cktkj ewY; vo/kkj.k djus ds fy, & jftLVªhdj.k vf/kdkjh ;k dyDVj ls visf{kr gS fd 1975 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 5 esa fofufnZ"V dkjdksa ij fopkj fd;k tk,A ¼iSjk 44
¼4½ cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3¼2½¼[k½ & jftLVªhdj.k izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks dsoy ekxZn'kZd ds :i esa gS ,oa vkKkid ugha & ;g jftLVªhdj.k izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds foosd dks de ugha djrk & mfpr cktkj ewY; dk vo/kkj.kk djuk & 1975 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 5 esa crk;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 45] 46 ,oa 52
¼5½ cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3¼2½¼[k½ & LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 47d & LVkai ¼e-iz- fy[krksa dk U;wu&ewYkadu fuokj.k½ fu;e] 1975 & fu- 5 & 2000 ds fu;eksa dk fu;e 3¼2½¼[k½ & D;k /kkjk 47d dk vf/kdkjkrhr gS & fu;e 3¼2½¼[k½ vkSj /kkjk 47d esa fofufnZ"V izfØ;k ds lkFk ifBr 1975 ds fu;eksa esa dksbZ fojks/kkHkkl ugha gS & 2000 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 3¼2½¼[k½ dh fof/kekU;rk dks vk{ksfir djuk [kkfjt fd;k x;k & tkjh fd, x, vk{ksfir fl)karksa esa dksbZ =qfV ugha ikbZ tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 48 ls 51
¼6½ cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3¼2½¼[k½] 4¼1½ rFkk 11 & laifÙk dk U;wu ewY; & ewY;kadu lfefr@cksMZ }kjk fofgr fd;k x;k & bl fo"k; esa dksbZ f'kdk;r & ds fy, mipkj & leqfpr U;k;ky; ds le{k vk{ksfir dh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 51
¼7½ cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000 ¼e-iz-½ & fu-3 & LVkai ¼e-iz- fy[krksa dk U;wu&ewYkadu fuokj.k½ fu;e] 1975 & fu-5 & ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa esa fofufnZ"V nks Lrj dh njksa ds fo"k; esa f'kdk;r & lkj jfgr gS & ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa ds v/khu dkjdksa dh & 1975 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e ds vèkhu [kkst fudkyh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 53 ,oa 54
¼8½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 47d & LVkai ¼e-iz- fy[krksa dk U;wu&ewYkadu fuokj.k] fu;e] 1975 & fu-5 & e-iz- cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk cuk;k tkuk vkSj mudk iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2000& fu-3¼2½¼[k½ & vk{ksfir ekxZn'kZd fl)karksa dk tkjh fd;k tkuk vuqKs; u gksus ds fo"k; esa vkifÙk & izR;k;ksftr 'kfä dk vkSj vkxs izR;k;kstu ugha gks ldrk ds fl)kar ij vk/kkfjr & ekxZn'kZd fl)kar /kkjk 47d vkSj 2000 ds fu;eksa ds lkFk ifBr 1975 ds fu;eksa ds mís'; vkSj vk'k; dks izHkko'khy djus ds fy, tkjh fd, x, gSa & fo/kk;h dh ,slh Ldhe ds n`f"Vdks.k ls & vkifÙk [kkfjt dh xbZA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1712 lu~ 2004( fu.khZr fnukad 17-1-12013] 1997¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 636 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] , vkb vkj 1976 ckWEcs 395] , vkb vkj 2015 ,l lh 1271 ¼1986½4 ,l lh lh 326] ¼1989½3 ,l lh lh 132 rFkk ¼2000½3 ,l lh lh 40 izHksfnrA vU; fu.kZ;] fu.kZ; ds iSjk 8] 12] 13] 15 rFkk 22 esa fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 55 ,oa 56
(1) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S.29 -- M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 -- R.3(2) (b) -- validity of -- who can challenge -- ordinarily -- stamp duty on instrument of sale of agricultural land -- is payable by purchaser and not by owner -- petitioners owner of agricultural land may not be required to pay stamp duty -- so it is not open to them to raise issue about validity of rule 3(2) (b) -- however, question so raised considered. [Para 27
(2) Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (M.P.) -- R.3(2)(b) -- Stamp Act, 1899 -- S.47-A -- fixation of market value by Central Valuation Board -- expression "market value" -- must be read as "minimum value" in context of section 47A -- "minimum value" and "market value" -- must be understood as fair market value which in opinion of Registering Authorites must be applied to land.
[Paras 41 & 43
(3) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S.47A -- M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 -- R.4 -- Stamp (M.P. Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 - R.5 -- difference between fair "market value" determined by Registering Authorities and "minimum value" specified by Valuation Committee -- for determining market value -- Registering Officer or Collector is expected to take into account factors specified in rule 5 of Rules of 1975. [Para 44
(4) Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (M.P.) -- R.3(2)(b) -- is only as guideline to Registering Authorities and not mondatory -- it does not curtail discreation of Registering Authorities -- determination of fair market value -- spelt out in rule 5 of Rules of 1975. [Paras 45, 46 & 52
(5) Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (M.P.) -- R.3(2)(b) -- Stamp Act,1899 -- S.47A -- Stamp (M.P. Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 -- R.5 -- R.3(2)(b) of Rules, 2000 -- whether it is ultra vires of section 47A -- there is no conflict between Rule 3(2) (b) and procedure specified in section 47A read with Rules of 1975 -- challenged to validity of rule 3(2)(b) of Rules, 2000 rejected -- no fault can be found in issued impugned guidelines.
[Paras 48 to 51
(6) Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (M.P.) -- Rr.3(2)(b), 4(1) and 11 -- minimum value of property -- prescribed by Valuation Committee/Board -- and grievance about it -- remedy for -- can be challenged before appropriate forum. [Para 51
(7) Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (M.P.) -- R.3 -- Stamp (M.P Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 -- R.5 -- grievance about two slab rates specified in guidelines -- is without any substance -- factors under guidelines -- can be traced to rule 5 of Rules of 1975. [Paras 53 & 54
(8) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S.47A -- Stamp (M.P. Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 -- R.5 -- M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 -- R.3(2)(b) -- objection about impermissibility of issuing impungned guidelines -- based on doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare -- guidelines issued to effectuate object and intent of section 47A and Rules of 2000 read with Rules of 1975 -- in view of such legislative scheme -- objection rejected. Writ Petition 1712 of 2004; Decided on 17.1.2013, 1997(2) MPLJ 636(DB), AIR 1976 Bom. 395, AIR 2015 SC 1271, (1986)4 SCC 326], (1989)3 SCC 132 and (2000)3 SCC 40 distinguished. Other decisions referred to in paras 8, 12,13, 15 and 22 of judgment. [Paras 55 & 56
Khanwilkar, C. J. -- 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to question the validity of rule 3(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2000”) as ultra vires section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1899”) and other provisions of the Act of 1899 and Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1975”). It is prayed that the abovesaid Rule be struck down as ultra vires. It is further prayed that the Clauses in the market value guidelines for year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, prescribing market value for the agricultural land in the State be also quashed and set aside as it impinges upon the discretion of the Registering Authorities.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioners claim to be Agriculturists and are engaged in occupation of Farming, which is their principal source of livelihood and income. They are the absolute owners and Bhumiswamis of land being Khasra No.125/2 admeasuring 3.885 hectares at Village Misrod, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal (petitioner No.1); khasra No.6/2/3, admeasuring 1.331 hectares at Village Misrod, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal (petitioner No.2).
3. It is stated that the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1899 with the aims and objectives to consolidate the laws relating to the stamps in India. Section 2(10) defines “conveyance” as including a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos. Section 2(14) defines the expression “instrument” to include every document by which any right or liability is or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. Reference is made to provision of section 47A of the Act, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh and Rules of 1975, which were in force until year 2000. The purport of the unamended provisions of the Act and the Rules came up for consideration before the Division of our High Court in the case of Bala Prasad and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [1972(2) MPLJ 636 (DB) (Para 8 to 11)]. The Court held that the concerned rule has had the effect of abrogating the power of the Registering Officer under sub-section (1) of section 47A to draw his own conclusion. The Rule was, therefore, held to be ultra vires as it did not stand the test of section 47A thereof. The Court held that the Registering Officer is a statutory functionary under the Act and his function cannot be taken away, abrogated or curtailed by a subordinate legislation.
4. The petitioners have then adverted to the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules of 2000. According to the petitioners, amended Section 47A delegates the power to State Government to frame Rules limited to determination of “minimum value” of any immovable property. The purport of amended section 47A in particular, sub-section (1) thereof, operates in different but limited field governing minimum value of immovable properties in the State. Section 75 of the Stamp Act authorizes the State Government to frame Rules for effectuating the purpose and various provisions of the Stamp Act. In furtherance of these provisions, the Rules of 1975 have been framed, under which, various physical and empirical parameters are reckoned, at the time of valuation of market value of any property which is the subject matter of instrument presented for registration. The Rules of 2000 have been enacted by the State Government prescribing the mode, manner and procedure through which the market value of various immovable properties subjected to stamp duties must be determined and fixed by various statutory authorities, as constituted and provided under the said Rules. Rule 2(e) of these rules defines the expression “Market Value Guidelines” as the set of values of immovable properties in different Vil
