Karnataka High Court
M/S Mourya Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
.1...
fliTHEIflEm!COURTCHIKARRAEKKA,BAGAfiORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER; I,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE I
WRIT PETITION No. 10222/I2o{)ésL I '(GMI.;§fp,4IeN)./::\\\ I , "
BETWEEN :
M/S. MOURYE L'.m.> .
REGD. or«'1"-*1c:;:: Arr NU. 418.1, 4TH.Icr<:oss
12TH R:'T?A_D,-..N S'PU?-MM;
MYSOERE, RERBY rrs Mhlmaine nmrscroa
N s GQ_PALAKRISH.NA_ I I
s/0. N SUBBA I
AGED ABGUR 46"YE3AR--S.'3.
.. * V PETITIONER
- IAII31%'jI§§m,' I°I2.ASAIINA--~'u' 'R, ADV)
11 TI~IE'3TA'TE op' KARNATAKA
RI3r>.B'1 ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. ore' REVENUE
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 1.
I I2" _'.i"'I'I-IE DEPUTY mspacron GENERAL
OF REGISFRATION 85 COMMISSIONER
OF SFAMPS, MYSORE DIVISION
MYSORE.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR &
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE. !LV{
-2.
4 THE SUB---REGISTRAR
MYSORE sown, MYSORE.
Rssmnmxws
(BY SR1. R DEVDAS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED..I}NDER 'A'R9§i:;;£ES*.226 V "
AND 227 OF THE coNs'r1'rU'r1or§ OF'iNDIA-1'PRAYIV!§G"fI'{}
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.31.03.EO06;"FASS'i1D'~BY zzzefrmez
DEPUTY INSPECFOR GENERAL OF REGISFRA1'ION
COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS MYSORE DIWS§Oi'9;«MY$ORE--.. '
AND THE ORDER DTD. 24.o3.;m4 PASSED_'.BY}R3 VIBE
ANNEXURE-A Am) B, Raspscrxvgty, e «
THIS WRIT PETi'r_ioN FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE comm' Mnnetmz mntewgne;
one S.L.Venkatesh executed a
deed--<.1f_exel'1.*=;i;ge.v'dt§'-5;§.2OO3 disclosing Rs.7,47,000/«-
:»1ni='é."ket of the property, which when
before the 4th respondenbthe
Mysore South, Mysore, was impounded
to the 3"' respondent District Registrar
Section 45-A(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act
-~--1§1)57, for short the 'Act', to determine the correct market vaiue stating that the market value of the property was undervalued and that the estimated -3- market value of the property was Rs.19,92,O0O/-Va}: the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.ft. The petitioner, op the reference made by the 4th respondent, filing objections which when respondent, by order _ determined the market oi' as V' Rs. 16,60,000/- at R.s.5oo/.;tpe;[.s§g;e.p% anedirected the petitioner to pay the and reg1s' tration charges. That appeal to the 2""
General of Registxafion & Commissioner of invoking Subsection (5) of " Act. That appeal when not the Appellate Authority impeiled the ;...:ao..e;a1;.. re W.P.179'74/2005, whence this Court by Order. 3.9.2005 directed the Appellate Authority to of the appeal within four months therefrom. ' The petitioner's contention that the property in question i tails within the residential area as stated in the letter cit. 28.2.2006 issued by the Deputy Director for Urban M .4- Planning, Mysore M Palike, was the order of 3rd respondent was afiirmed 31.3.2006 AnI1exure--A. Hence
2. There is no oppositiogl t0'tfie L' statement of objectiolfgs of tI1e_L:ifee.p0131de.1its..
3. The learned '_ contends that site 1~io.32"4sv»e 30 x 100* (3000 sq.ft) at': Mohalla, Mysore and property site 2247 and 2243/1 (3460 sq.fc) '_ Devaraga Mohalla, were the of the exchange deed (111. 5.9.2003. learned counsel, the properties being pmommm situated in a residential locality, the V' "V~iLfnn:1Vafi;,et value of the property was Rs.7,47,000/- at A' RTs.225/- per sq.ft. as disclosed in the deed of exchange, u in conformity with the guideline value, notified by the State Government. Learned counsel contends that V?
-5.
authorities fell in serious error 'm assum.i1ig4 Vt_I1e residential site measuring 3460 sq.ft Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore 2 predornlm ntly commercial Vfigsfhe property of the petitioner for a_ "
the market value of the _ Wes' ' R,s,5§)O/- per sq.fl:., despite the letter of ~*-hi?' T01' Ufbafl Planmng' , My$'~¥r¢'.M9*1..' 'WV 'stating that the property jje- :1 residential site. Learned counsel" haze-.tens_ in the absence of relevant materiax eeesetueng substantial mm evidence of the in question did oommand a I ' 500/- per sq.fi;, there was no lwl basis _ for""'$.*he--..':e1;t:1"1o1*it:ies to conclude that the property was _ .. .. .. undewéioed for the purpose of the exchange deed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA seeks to sustain the impugmed order as being well merited, fully justifieci and not calling for interference. }:{L E .6-
5. Article 26 to the Schedule to exchange of property and the same duty as a conveyance (2Cs) i'0r a equal to the market va1ue"et'::._"t.'1e greatest value subject matter qtetpespondent. Sub-Registrar of exchange dt. 5.9. 200:; he petitioner and another of the properties as 123.7 the property bearizg site Nos. 224*z and it 3460 sq.fl:. was of the g'ee;_t'e'st. vaiue. cemparison with the site N03248 sq.fi: at JLP Cross, Devaraj Mohalla, A respondent While making the reference H V' . on stated that the market value of the t W H K "Was 1333.600/-- per sq.fi: and that, it was a clear undervaluation. The 3rd respondent having held T enquiry, recorded a finding that the property in question was situated in a predom.inant1y commercial area and that the site in question was adjacent to the ..'?..
property belonging to the petitioner, l..fofva.. V' :
hotel and therefore, has the use, to conclude that the site4§'eon'l1ne_'a'i1ds L. of Rs.500/~-- per sq.ft and the directed payment A (luty and reg'st:ration charge. order very clearly authority had no the market value of the except that the land in questioa commeneial area.
In " abseneei of relevant material constituting evidence of the fact that the market ~-- per sq.ft, the authority, it cannot V «V xeoncludetl on surmise, conjecture and guess 'A K V .:WcsI'k_,A lfietetmination of market value for the purpose of * valuation under the Act cannot be based on u or guesswork or presumptions but must be based on relevant material, failing which the determination of market value stands vitiated. This is M «../Ma; I -8- precisely what the 3111 respondent-Dishi_ct.l§egis*ei$e1*A .. Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, 4' A Al
6. The Appellate Authority rennet eeei£zi~ e>ith the"
guesswork of the 3% niatter of determination of see. accordingly, dismissed the of the order impugled discloses that eetidiepute the fact that the propezfy as disclosed in the lettexf of the -Deputy for Urban Planning, Mysore 'nevertheless, assumed that the put to use for a commercial purpose alt and therefore, there was justification for '-the 3"-'.4 respondent to determine the market value of the at Rs.50{)/- per sq.fi. This conclusion arrived V' _at% by the Appellate Authority mnnot but be said to be ' perverse and without justification. Having regard to the patent mistakes committed by the authorities below, in M -9- the matter of determination of the u detection of unden-valuation, ' with their orders impugned'.
7. In the is%anou;ea. The orders of the are quashed and the ;'espondcnt for a fresh éiftefidizzg reasonable jgetitioncr and to pass omemsmcuy with law and in the light of the observzi'i:"io_ns.:§1ade Sixpra. v ._ a17;3011£1§t'in""'tieposit in the appeal is directed to petitioner in case he succeeds in the remand.
Judge ' Ln.