Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1820 - HC - Indian LawsDetermination of the value of the property for payment of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - main contention advanced is that the documents on which the reliance was placed by the Collector were never supplied to the respondent - HELD THAT:- As the matter is being remanded by the learned Single Judge and as this appeal is dismissed, without going into the details of the judgments, but, suffice it to say that the circle rates are not the only factors to be kept in mind by the Collector. The circle rate can be one of the factors to be kept in mind by the Collector for determination of the value under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, especially, when the person who has approached for registration of the sale deed is disputing the valuation pointed out by the registering authority. In such an eventuality, detailed procedure ought to have been followed by the Collector as per Section 47-A(2) of the Act, 1899 keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects of the matter as well as the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMESH CHAND BANSAL & ORS. VERSUS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR GHAZIABAD & ORS. [1999 (5) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT] and RAVINDER NARAIN AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2003 (2) TMI 515 - SUPREME COURT] determination of the value of the property. The mechanical approach of the Collector only to follow the circle rate is hereby deprecated. It was held in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal & Ors. vs. District Magistrate/Collector that the impugned circular and the notice to be valid. Notice has already been issued to the appellants and they have an opportunity to contest the valuation prima facie fixed under the said circular and to prove to the contrary in the proceedings before the Collector. It was held in the case of Ravinder Narain & Anr. vs. UOI that on the basis of the instances pressed into service by the acquiring authority and the land owner-appellants, the average can be fixed @ ₹ 61.50/- for both the notifications in question by adopting the extent of plotted area as done by the High Court which appears to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the rate per sq. yard can be fixed @Rs.40/-. Though it was contended that there was marked variation in price relating to the instances of sale, vis--vis second notification, it does not appear, on the basis of evidence on record, that the fluctuation was of very high magnitude. This Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed as there are no reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge since no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating the aforesaid facts of the matter. The money deposited by the respondent (original petitioner) with this Court as per the order dated 12th April, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and will be invested in a nationalised bank, since the matter is being remanded to the Collector for fresh determination of the valuation, and if any additional stamp duty is required to be paid by this respondent (original petitioner), the amount of Rs. 1,06,87,791/- will be adjusted towards the same. If more amount is to be deposited by the original petitioner, the aforesaid amount will be adjusted. If lesser amount is to be paid by the original petitioner, rest of the amount will be returned to the original petitioner. Appeal dismissed.
|