Karnataka High Court
M/S Land Trades Builders And Developers vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.29119/2018
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.29525-29556/2018(GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
M/S LAND TRADES BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
1ST FLOOR, NEW MILAGRES MANSION,
FALNIR ROAD,
MANGALURU-575001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI.K.SHRINATH HEBBAR,
S/O LATE SRINIVASA HEBBAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
OF STAMP OFFICE OF THE IGR,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
8TH FLOOR, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF STAMPS AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
D.K.DISTRICT,
MANGALORE-575008.
4. THE SECRETARY
VALUATION SUB-COMMITTEE AND
THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
MULKY-575008.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N. DINESH RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
A/W SRI ANANDEESHWAR D.R. HCGP)
...
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT STRIKE DOWN CLAUSE 12 OF CHAPTER-1 OF THE
GUIDELINE VALUATION OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR MULKY FOR
THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 01.04.2017 APPROVED BY THE
RESPONDET-2 AS BEING AND ULTRA VIRES TO THE
CONSTITUTION [ANNEXURE-A].
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions for the relief as follows:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction striking down clause 12 of Chapter No.1 of the Guideline Valuation 3 of the Sub-Registrar Mulky for the year 2017-18 dated 1.4.2017 approved by the 2nd respondent as being ultra vires to the Constitution (Annexure-A);
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Memorandum dated 8.3.2018 bearing No:Noo.MU/CVC/645/2017-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent whereby fixing the market value of the schedule property at Rs.15,000/- per Square Mtrs.(Annexure- B);
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No.2 to consider the recommendation/ order/letter/decision dated 27.3.2018 bearing No.MARU.MA.BA/45 B/19/2017-
18 issued by respondent No.4 and thereby fix the valuation of the schedule property at Rs.8700/- per sq. mt. and register the 4 schedule property at the earliest (Annexure-C);
d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 24.4.2018 in accordance with law and fix a fair market value to the schedule property and register the schedule property immediately (Annexure-D); and
e) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent in not fixing the market value of the schedule property at earliest is bad in law and violation of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of clause 12 of Chapter No.1 of the Guideline Valuation of the Sub-Registrar, Mulky for the year 2017-18 dated 1.4.2017 approved by the 2nd respondent fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq.mt., in 5 respect of schedule property are applying a wedge in the sale of the site which is unreasonable. The petitioners would be subjected to grave hardship and injury, if the market value of the schedule property is fixed at unreasonable high rate.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that it developed a layout for residential sites in Suratkal Village of Mangaluru Taluk known as 'Emerald Bay' in the year 2016. After obtaining clearances including conversion and layout approval from the Mangalore Urban Development Authority, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent within whose jurisdiction the said property falls for registration of one of the Sale Deed. At that time, the 4th respondent pointed out that the impugned guideline and directed the petitioner to get the valuation of the sites in the schedule property fixed through the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application on 6 12.12.2017 to the 4th respondent to fix the guidance value/market value for the schedule property furnishing all the details. The 4th respondent by a letter dated 13.12.2017 forwarded the application along with Form No.1 to the 3rd respondent with his comments. The 3rd respondent wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent- authority on 18.12.2017 and forwarded the communication and Form No.1 sent by the 4th respondent with a request to fix the guidance value for the layout formed by the petitioner in the schedule property at the earliest.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent without considering the prevailing price in the locality of the schedule property, without inspecting the schedule property and without considering the fact that the schedule property is in the vicinity where there is no school, college or government office nearby, issued impugned Memorandum dated 7 8.3.2018 and wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent fixing the guidance valuation of the schedule property at Rs.15,000/- per sq. mts. On coming to know about the impugned communication, the petitioner filed his objection on 12.3.2018 to 3rd and 4th respondent for exorbitant valuation drawn by the 2nd respondent by bringing the fact that the guidance value of the said area is not more than Rs.3,000/- per sq. mts and requested to fix the valuation at a maximum of Rs.5,000/- per. Sq. mts.
5. The 2nd respondent by a memorandum dated 19.3.2018 directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the objection of the petitioner and place the same before the Valuation Sub-Committee Meeting and send the resolution. Accordingly, the Office of the Valuation Sub- Committee held a meeting on 22.3.2018 at 3 pm, without considering the fact that the surrounding area of the schedule property is not yet developed, has come 8 to the conclusion that the valuation of the schedule property can be fixed at Rs.8,700/- per sq. mtr considering the schedule property is developed and has latest facilities. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent to providing documents such as Sale Deed of the adjacent properties before the Sub-Registrar-4th respondent, who in turn considering the representation made by the petitioner, by the impugned letter dated 27.4.2018 to the 2nd respondent stated that no other layouts have been formed or registered and now the petitioner is agreeable for getting the registered Sale Deed at Rs.8,700/- per sq. mtr. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. This Court after hearing both parties by the order dated 17.7.2018 directed the 4th respondent - jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to register the Sale Deeds that would be submitted by the petitioner by accepting 9 the market value at Rs.8,700/- per sq. mtr. as per the recommendation dated 27.3.2018 made by the 2nd respondent and subject to further undertaking submitted by the petitioner/executant that difference of stamp duty if any, that would be raised will be paid by petitioner/executant within the time stipulated by the respondent-authorities.
7. When the matter had come up before this Court on 28.11.2018, the learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17.7.2018, the 4th respondent has already registered the Sale Deeds submitted by the petitioner accepting the market value at the rate of Rs.8,700/- per sq. mtr. And the Valuation Committee refixed the value at the rate of Rs.11,800/- per sq. mtr. And the same is already submitted for approval before the State Government.
10
8. In view of the above, Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Anandeeshwar D.R., the learned HCGP for respondents submits that it is for the State Government to consider and approve and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the State Government, it is for the petitioner either to accept or to challenge the same in accordance with law. The said submission is placed on record.
9. In view of the above, Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitions may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fixation to be made by the Valuation Committee and approval made by the Government at the rate of Rs.11,800/- per sq. mtr, if the petitioner is aggrieved, keeping open all the contentions urged in the writ petitions to be raised at 11 the appropriate relevant point of time. The said submission is placed on record.
10. The learned Counsel further submits that till the approval is made by the State Government on the refixation made by the Valuation Committee, the concerned Sub-Registrar may be directed to register the Sale Deeds except approval at the rate of Rs.8,700/- per sq. mts. which will be subject to approval by the State Government and the petitioners have to fulfil the undertaking made before this Court in terms of the order dated 17.7.2018.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petitions are disposed of directing the 4th respondent to accept the registered Sale Deeds to be submitted by the petitioner accepting the market value at the rate of Rs.8,700/- per sq. mtr. Which will be subject to refixation to be made by the Valuation Committee and to be approved by the State Government in terms of the 12 undertaking given by the petitioner before this Court on 17.7.2018 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the re- fixation or approval made by the State Government, it is open for the petitioner to approach this Court.
12. All the contentions raised in the present writ petitions are kept open to be urged at the appropriate relevant point of time by both parties.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-