Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Daya Shankar Vora vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28559) on 2 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:28559]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3084/2002
Daya Shankar Vora S/o Shiv Shanker through his LRs
I. Shri Lalit Vora S/o Late Shri Daya Shankar Vora, Aged
About 64 Years,
II. Shri Sripath Vora S/o Late Shri Daya Shankar Vora, Aged
About 61 Years,
III. Shri Kailash Vora S/o Late Shri Daya Shankar Vora, Aged
About 57 Years,
All are resident of Jaisalmer House, Near Polo Ground,
Sunset Road, Mount Abu. Dist. Sirohi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, finance,
Government of Rajasthan Jaipur
2. The Inspection General, Stamps And Registration Raj.
Ajmer.
3. The Sub- Registrar, Adu Road, Dist Sirohi (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Siddharth Joshi and
Mr. Sachin Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order 02/07/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned demand notice dated 29.07.2002 (Annexure-6), whereby a demand was raised for payment of additional stamp duty and directed to pay within a period of seven days failing which they proposed to initiate proceedings under the law by making a reference to the Collector (Stamps), Sirohi (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (2 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] for appropriate action. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner presented a sale deed for registration before the registering authority. In the said sale deed, the total consideration referred was Rs.60 lakhs. The value in the sale deed was referred less than the basic value recorded in the register maintained by the Sub- Registrar on account of the land being encumbered with tenancy. The petitioner was the tenant of the landlord. Due to such encumbrance, the landlord agreed to sell the property for a value lower than the prevailing market rate and the same consideration was mentioned in the sale deed submitted for registration.
2.1 The registering officer after conducting an inquiry and considering the basic value registration, treated the consideration based on the basic value and determined the value of the property at Rs.1.75 Crore. Accordingly, the stamp duty was collected on that value and the document was registered on 10.10.2001. Thereafter, the document was also released in favour of the petitioner. However, nearly 10 months after the registration, a fresh impugned demand notice was issued, whereunder the determination of the market value was enhanced and determined as Rs.25,82,06,485/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crore Eighty Two Lacs Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Five) and also assessed the stamp duty of Rs.2,84,02,714/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Four Lacs Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen). After deducting the stamp duty already paid, the (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (3 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] balance amount due was determined as Rs.2,64,74,339/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Four Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Nine). The petitioner was directed to pay the said amount within a period of seven days, failing proceedings were proposed to be initiated by making a reference to the Collector (Stamps), Sirohi. 2.2 The petitioner has challenged the said notice on the ground that once the document has been registered and released in his favour, the Sub-Registrar has no authority to redetermine the value of the property and reassess the stamp duty. Such a course of action is open to the authority only when there exists a reason to believe that the document was undervalued at the time of registration. In the absence of such a reason, once the document is registered and released in favour of the petitioner, thereafter the Sub-Registrar has no authority to redetermine the value of the property and reassess the stamp duty. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the Sub-Registrar by the impugned demand notice is arbitrary, unjust and without any jurisdiction.
3. The case of the respondents is that the property in question is located at Polo Ground in ward No.7. However, while determining the market value of the document for the purpose of registration, the basic value registration referring to ward no.5 was taken and valuation was fixed according to that. Subsequently, upon receiving a complaint and conducted an inquiry, it was found that the valuation of the property was undervalued. Therefore, the correct valuation (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (4 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] of the property was determined and accordingly a notice was issued to the petitioner to pay the differential stamp duty, failing which they contemplated the reference by referring the matter to the Collector (Stamps). The other ground taken in the reply was that the impugned notice was issued based on a report under Section 47D of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). As such, the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and the petitioner has a remedy by responding to the same and let the authority to pass an appropriate order thereafter. They prayed to dismiss the writ petition being premature.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the mandate contained under Section 47A of the Act, the registering authority has the power to make a reference to the Collector when he has reason to believe that the document was undervalued when presented for registration. However, once the document is registered without forming any reason to believe that the document is undervalued, he cannot subsequently form an opinion and seek a reference after the document has been registered and released in favour of the petitioner.
5.1 Learned senior counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shankar Lal & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors;2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 390. 5.2 Learned senior counsel further contended that even considering the location of the property in ward no.7 maximum valuation determined under the rate in basic value (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (5 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] register with reference to the properties located in ward no.7 and also ward no.5 is the same. The basic value register is uniform for both wards. The maximum value was Rs.1955 per sq. yard in both locations. Therefore, the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty based on the maximum basic value contemplated under ward no.5 as well as ward no.7. Since, there is no variation in the valuation, there is no need to reopen and the re-determination value. He also submits that Section 47B of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case. Section 47B of the Act applies only in cases where there is an error apparent on the record in the order passed by the Collector and such power can be exercised only by the Collector, not by the registering officer. Therefore, that provision is also not applicable.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the demand notice was issued by exercising power under Section 47D of the Act. It is merely a notice, therefore, it is premature to entertain the writ petition challenging the said notice. According to him, the petitioner can respond to the notice and await the appropriate order. The stand of learned counsel is that the notice was issued by exercising power under Section 47D of the Act mistakenly it was pleaded in the reply that such was exercised under Section 47B of the Act. In the reply,
7. In light of the above submission, it is relevant to refer to Sections 47A(1), 47A(2), 47B and 47D of the Act which are quoted hereinbelow: -
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28559] (6 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] "47A. Instrument undervalued how to be valued.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) and the rules made thereunder as in force in Rajasthan where in the case of any instrument relating to an immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument the registering officer has while registering the instruments reasons to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may [either before or after registering] the instrument, send it in original to the Collector for determination of the market value and to assess and charge the duty in conformity with such determination together with a penalty not exceeding ten times the deficient stamp duty chargeable and surcharge, if any payable on such instrument.
(2) On the receipt of the instrument under sub-
section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner, determine the market value and the duty including the penalty and surcharge, if any, payable thereon and if the amount of duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, so determined exceeds the amount of duty including penalty and surcharge, if any already paid the deficient amount shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty including penalty and surcharge, if any.
47B. Rectification of mistakes. - With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, the Collector may amend any order made by him under [this Act], within ninety days of the date of order either on his own motion or the mistake being brought to his notice by person affected by the order:
Provided that if any such amendment is likely to affect any person prejudicially, it shall not be made without giving to such person reasonable opportunity of being heard.
47-D. Intimation of reference and payment of duty before reference - (1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the registering officer shall, before making a reference to the (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (7 of 9) [CW-3084/2002] Collector under this Act, intimate to the parties concerned about the reference proposed to be made by him.
(2) In case the person liable to pay the duty offers to pay the amount of duty chargeable on such instrument, the registering officer shall, on payment of such duty, certify in on the instrument by endorsement and shall not make the reference."
8. A plain reading of Section 47A(1) it makes clear that when the registering officer, while registering the instrument, finds any reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he has the option to refer the document either before or after registration to the Collector, alongwith the original, for determination of the true market value and assess the stamp duty, charges and penalty, if any.
9. Section 47A(2) of the Act enable the Collector to conduct an enquiry based on such a reference made by the registering authority, after duly giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties affected by such a reference. A further reading of Section 47B of the Act shows that such power is exercised by the Collector to rectify errors apparent on the record in the order made by him under this Act. This Power is not applicable to any order passed by the registering officer. Furthermore, this power must be exercised by the Collector within 90 days and this provision does not confer authority on the registering authority. Even going by Section 47D of the Act also, the provision merely state that when a reference is made by the registering officer by exercising power under Section 47A(1) of the Act, the procedure to be followed is specified.
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:28559] (8 of 9) [CW-3084/2002]
10. In the present case, the basis question is whether the Sub Registrar, after the document has been registered, can exercise the power of reference without having formed any opinion regarding the existence of any reason to believe that the document was undervalued at the time of registration. In the present case, the document was registered based on the basic value register maintained by the registering authority.
11. The registering authority, while registering the document, had notice that the declared value in the document was less than what was recorded in the basic value register. Consequently, the authority revised the valuation of the document and collected the stamp duty based on the market value determined according to basic value register. The registering officer applied its mind, by exercising its power and collected the true value of the property which is more than the value mentioned in the document itself and demanded the appropriate stamp duty. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the stamp duty, thereafter the document was registered and released in favour of the petitioner. The registering authority has not formed any opinion as to existence of reasons to believe that the property in question was undervalued and it was more than the market value referred in basic value register. Once, the power has been exercised the registering authority no longer has the authority to make a reference by exercising power under Section 47A(1) of the Act. The same is the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Shankar Lal (supra). (Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28559] (9 of 9) [CW-3084/2002]
12. The contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not supported by any of the provisions under the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 29.07.2002 requires to be set aside.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 29.07.2002 is set aside.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 5-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 10:38:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)