Gauhati High Court
M/S. Tinsukia Development Corporation vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 9 January, 2019
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010004052019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 137/2019
1:M/S. TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A.T.
ROAD,
TINSUKIA TOWN,
P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, NAMELY, SRI SANJAY
AGARWAL ( 44 YEARS), SON OF SRI BIJAY AGARWAL, R/O A.T. ROAD, P.O.
AND DIST.TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
PIN - 786125
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER UPPER ASSAM DIVISION
JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ECORDS AND SURVEY
ASSAM, RUPNAGAR, GUWAHATI.
4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
ASSAM, GUWAHATI.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
6:THE DISTRICT VALUATION COMMITTEE
TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B. DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 09-01-2019 Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.
Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the notification dated 20.08.2018 issued by the District Collector and Chairman, District Valuation Committee, Tinsukia whereby zonal valuation for Tinsukia district has been fixed as per enclosed statement.
Assailing the validity of the said notification, Mr. Dutta submits that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was amended by an Assam Amendment in the year 2004 by insertion of Section 27 A. District Collector has tried to draw legitimacy in carrying out zonal valuation from the aforesaid section but in the absence of any supporting rules providing for constitution of District Valuation Committee such an exercise would be invalid. Section 27 A per se do not provide for constitution of District Valuation Committee. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Jawajee Nagnatham Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A. P. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595 and Lal Chand Vs Union of India reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 to contend that market value of the land for proper stamp duty has to be determined as per law under Section 27 A but unless rules are framed to provide the statutory framework, such determination would not have any legal sanctity. Further submission is that though 10 states of the country have framed rules including the neighbouring states, State of Assam has not framed rules till date.
Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the previous notification dated 13.02.2014 of the District Collector and Chairman, District Valuation Committee, Tinsukia fixing zonal valuation for Tinsukia district and contends that this notification or other previous notifications of identical nature were not assailed by the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/3 In reply, Mr. Dutta submits that there cannot be any estoppel or acquiescence against law.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, Court is of the view that since petitioner has raised a legal challenge to the notification dated 20.08.2018, the same is required to be decided by the Court.
Issue notice, returnable 8 (eight) weeks.
Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 whereas Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam accepts notice on behalf of remaining respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
Extra copies within 3 (three) days.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration impugned notification dated 20.08.2018 is hereby stayed.
List on 29.03.2019.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant