Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Rahul Bhayji & another v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1612 of 2022 (Jabalpur); against the order dated 8.12.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. Appeal-378/2020; Decided on 19.3.2023.
Naveen Kumar Salunke for appellants;
Ms. Papiya Ghose, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:
¼1½ LVkai vfèkfu;e] 1899 && èkkjk 40 ¼[k½ && ekxZn'kZd fl)kar Øekad 4-1] 4-2] 4-3 rFkk 4-4 && cktkj ewY; dk voèkkj.k && ekxZnf'kZdk dk dkSu&lk micaèk ykxw g¨xk && Òwfe dh vofLFkfr ls fofuf'pr g¨xk && mä vfèkfu.kZ; d¢ vÒko esa fupys vfèkdj.k d¨ fookfnr Òwfe d¢ cktkj ewY; dk U;k;fu.kZ;u ugÈ djuk pkfg, FkkA ¼iSjk 8
¼2½ LVkai vfèkfu;e] 1899 && èkkjk 40 ¼Ä½ rFkk 40 ¼³½ && ekxZn'kZd fl)kar Øekad 4-2 rFkk 4-4 && vihy U;k;ky;¨a dh 'kfä rFkk drZO; && cktkj ewY; dk voèkkj.k && vihy U;k;ky;¨a d¢ le{k vkifÙk mBkà xà fd Òwfe ekxZn'kZd fl)kar Øekad 4-2 d¢ {ks= ds ijs fLFkr gS blfy, cktkj ewY; ekxZn'kZd fl)kar Øekad 4-4- d¢ vuqlkj voèkkfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, && vihy çkfèkdkfj;¨a }kjk bl vkifÙk dk U;k;fu.kZ;u ugÈ fd;k x;k && vihy esa mBk;k x;k vkèkkj fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk pkfg, && vihy çkfèkdkjh d¨ vihy esa mBk, x, vkèkkj dk U;k;fu.kZ;u djus ls cpus dk ç;kl ugÈ djuk pkfg, && ;kph d¢ fuosnu dk U;k;fu.kZ;u djus d¢ i'pkr~ Òwfe dk cktkj ewY; fofuf'pr djus d¢ fy, ekeyk çFke vihy U;k;ky; d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 9
(1) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 40 (b) -- Guideline No. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 -- determination of market value -- which provision of guidelines would apply -- location of land will decide -- in absence of said adjudication, tribunal below should not have adjudicated market value of land in dispute. [Para 8
(2) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S. 40 (d) and 40 (e) -- Guidelines No. 4.2 and 4.4 -- powers and duty of appellate Courts -- determination of market value -- objection raised before appellate Courts that land is situated outside area of guideline No. 4.2 so market value should be determined according to guideline No. 4.4 -- such objection not adjudicated by appellate authorities -- ground raised in appeal should be decided -- appellate authority should not try to avoid adjudication of ground raised in appeal -- matter remanded to first appellate Court to decide market value of land after adjudicating submission of petitioner. [Paras 6 & 9
ORDER
1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 8.12.2021 passed by Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior (M.P.) in case No. Appeal-378/2020/Sagar/Stamps by which the market value of the land purchased by the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.45,75,700/- and accordingly, it has been directed that the stamp and registration charges should be paid accordingly.
2. The basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had specifically raised an objection before the Court of Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar as well as the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh that land in dispute falls within the jurisdiction of Nagar Parishad, Rahatgarh and therefore, clause 4.4 of the guidelines issued for calculating the market value of the land situated in the different areas for the year 2018-19, would apply and not clause 4.2 because Nagar Parishad Rahatgarh does not fall within the areas mentioned in clause 4.2. It is submitted that in spite of the specific objection raised by the petitioner, which is also reflected from the orders passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar and the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, the said contention has not been considered at all by both the tribunals and accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 8.12.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, in case No.378/2020/Sagar/Stamps and order dated 11.2.2020 passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in case No.331/Appeal/2019-20 as well as the order dated 25.7.2019 passed by the Collector of Stamp, District Sagar, are liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the tribunals below have considered all the submissions made by the petitioner and the orders do not require any interference
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.331/Appeal/2019-20 against the order dated 25.7.2019 passed by Collector of Stamps, District Sagar in case No.479/B-103/section 48(B)/2018-19. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner in his written statement has taken a defence that the land in dispute falls within the area of Ward No.13, Nagar Parishad, Rahatgarh. However, the operative part of the order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar runs in one paragraph only and in that paragraph, there is no adjudication as to whether the land in dispute falls within Ward No.13, Nagar Parishad Rahatgarh, District Sagar or it would fall under clause 4.2 of the guidelines. Similarly in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, a specific objection was raised that the land in dispute falls within the area of Nagar Parishad Rahatgarh, which is evident from internal page 3 of the impugned order. However, there is no adjudication of this submission. Once again only paragraph 5 is the discussion by the Board of Revenue and there is no adjudication of this fact as to whether the land in dispute falls within the area of Nagar Parishad Rahatgarh, District Sagar or falls in an area other than the area of Nagar Parishad Rahatgarh, District Sagar.
6. Whenever, a ground is raised in Appeal, then it is expected from the Appellate Authority that the same shall be decided and the appellate authority should not try to avoid the adjudication of the ground raised in an appeal.
7. Be that as it may.
8. The location of the land will decide that which provision of guidelines i.e. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 or 4.4 would apply. In absence of the said adjudication, the tribunals below should not have adjudicated the market value of the land in dispute. Therefore, the order dated 8.12.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior passed in Case No.Appeal378/2020/Sagar/Stamps and the order dated 11.2.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar (M.P.) in case No.3331/Appeal/2019-20 are hereby set aside.
9. The
