Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The State Of West Bengal & Anr vs Smt. Parbati Ghosh & Ors on 24 June, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CULCUTTA
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
C.O. No. 3396 of 2015
With
C.A.N. No. 9694 of 2015
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
-Vs.-
Smt. Parbati Ghosh & Ors.
Present : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Aniruddha Sen.
For the Opposite Party No. 3 : Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Yahya Mosharaf Hussain.
Heard On : 08.04.2016, 16.05.2016,
18.05.2016.
C.A.V. On : 18.05.2016
Judgment Delivered On : 24.06.2016
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 2007, the State of West Bengal has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Calling in question the legality and validity of the impugned order the petitioners had submitted that the interception in augmentation of revenue cannot be considered by a Court without hearing the revenue authority. They contended that the impugned order is baseless on the sole question of judicial propriety because they were not parties to the suit. In the impugned order the learned Court below has directed to take necessary action for registration of the deed on the valuation arrived into by the Court which is absolutely illegal. Stamp duty assessed by the District Registrar has been turned down by the learned Court below and directed the register to act upon the value of the property as assessed by the Court. The said Court did not call for any valuation report from the collector.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that valuation has been done by the Court below and the learned Court has passed a decree which has been affirmed by the higher forum also. He submitted that Court had every authority to give a direction upon the District Registrar to execute the deed of conveyance by way of a registration on payment the stamp duty as assessed by the Court itself.
4. On perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned Court below has directed the D.S.R.-1, Alipore to take necessary action for registration of the deed without determining the valuation of the suit property under any provision, since the valuation of the property has been accepted by the Court.
5. It is perhaps needless to say that while dealing with the matter regarding the fiscal policy of the state, Court should be slow and to consider that aspect very meticulously before coming to any conclusion. Under Registration Act as well as Stamp Duty Act, in certain circumstances, collector has the authority to assess the valuation of the suit property. Valuation given by the parties before the Court may be accepted by the Court but that does not mean for the purpose of registration. The registering authority shall act upon their existing rules. No authority can encroach the power and jurisdiction of other authority.
6. On perusal of the report submitted by the District Registrar, it appears from the chargeability assessment slip, that the registrar has assessed the market value of the suit property to the tune of Rs.2,04,00502/- whereas the self-assessment of the party was Rs.15 lakhs. But from the report of the D.S.R.-1, South 24 Parganas it is crystal clear that he has taken into consideration the present market value of the property. He has lost light of one thing i.e. that the alleged agreement on the basis of which decree was passed was executed in 1993. It is not the fault of the parties as the case is pending for more than 22 years. Therefore, the order of the D.S.R.-1 is also not acceptable and it requires some modification.
7. Purpose of justice shall be best served, if the D.S.R.-1, Alipore be directed to assess the market value of the property prevalent on 22.11.1993 positively within a month. After such assessment is made afresh by the registering authority, and communicated to the Court below, the said Court shall direct the present opposite party to pay the requisite stamp duty as fixed by the D.S.R.-1, Alipore for the purpose of registration and in turn, the D.S.R.-1, Alipore shall complete the registration work.
8. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Court below is hereby modified to that extent and the present petitioner/state (District Registrar, South 24 Parganas) is directed to reassess the valuation of the property taking into consideration the prevalent market price of the property in 1993 and with this, impugned order is hereby modified.
9. The civil revisional application stands allowed but without any cost. Accordingly, the CAN being No. 9694/2015 is disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.
11. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.) A.F.R/N.A.F.R.