Karnataka High Court
The District Registrar vs Smt V Manjula on 21 February, 2013
Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, B.Manohar
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
W.A.NO.17129/2011 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
D C OFFICE BUILDING
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
2. THE SUB REGISTRAR
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, AGA)
AND
1. SMT V MANJULA
W/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
(SINCE R2 DEAD - R3 TO R7 ARE LR'S OF R2 V/O DT; 07-
12-2012)
2
3. SRI S GIRIJA SHANKAR
S/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
4. S KRISHNA
S/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5. S CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
S/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. S NAGENDRA
S/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
7. S UMESH
S/O SRIKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE
R/AT B R PROJECT
KASABA HOBLI
BHADRAVATHI TALUK ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY FOR R1,
R3 TO R6 ARE SERVED,
R7 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DT: 08.01.2013)
THIS W.A. FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT
PETITION NO.5068/2009 DATED 03/12/2010.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
DILIP B. BHOSALE J. (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent, this appeal is heard for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. Learned AGA submits that he has instructions to confine challenge to the observations made in the concluding paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.10 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.No.5068/09. Paragraph 9 reads thus:
"While disposing of this writ petition in the aforesaid manner, the Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary, Revenue Department, who is directed to circulate this among all the District Registrars in the State with direction that they shall not indulge in fixing the market value of the property contrary to the notified Government Value and at no point of time the valuation that should be arrived at by them should be in excess of the notified Government value."
3. After inviting our attention to the aforesaid observations, learned AGA submits that these observations are not consistent with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 and the rules framed thereunder and the observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court 4 in State of Punjab & Others -vs- Mohabir Singh (AIR 1996 SC 2994), the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund -vs- M/s.Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 1982 MADRAS 138) and the judgment of this Court in Sri R.Umaprasad -vs- Deputy Commissioner for Detection of and under Valuation of Stamps and Others 2004 (2) KCCR 883.
4. The writ petition was filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 13.12.00 passed by the Sub- Registrar (R-2) and the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the District Registrar (R-1). Respondent no.2, vide his order, fixed market value of the property that was subject matter of the instrument and accordingly demanded the stamp payable thereon within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent No.1, vide his order, further enhanced the market value of the property and directed to pay stamp as indicated in the order. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent.
5
5. In the writ petition, learned Single Judge vide order dated 3.12.10 set aside the order passed by the District Registrar (R-1) and confirmed the order passed by the Sub--Registrar (R-2). The challenge in the writ appeal is confined to the observations made in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. In other words, there is no challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge, confirming the order passed by the Sub-Registrar.
6. In this backdrop, we have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The Government of Karnataka has published a market value guidelines as provided for in Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. The guidelines, as referred to in para-9 of the order, are Notified Government Values under the Karnataka Stamp (Constitution of Central Valuation Committee for estimation, publication and revision of market value guidelines of properties) Rules 2003 (for short "the Rules").
6
7. Section 45-B of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules clearly indicate that the market values notified by the Government are only guidelines issued for guidance of registering authorities and it would serve as prima facie material available to alert them regarding the market value. The Supreme Court in Mohabir Singh (supra) while dealing with similar guidelines issued by the Government of Punjab under the provisions of the Stamp Act (2 of 1899) made the following observation in paragraph 5, which read thus:
"5. The guidelines provided by the State would only serve as prima facie material available before the Registering Authority to alert him regarding the value. It is common knowledge that the value of the property varies from place to place or even from locality to locality in the same place. No absolute higher or minimum value can be pre-determined. It would depend on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the instrument is situated. It will be only on objective satisfaction that the Authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued or consideration mentioned when it is presented for registration. The ultimate decision would be with the Collector subject 7 to the decision on an appeal before the District Court as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 47A."
8. The Madras High Court in Nilgiris (supra), while also dealing with the similar guidelines in paragraph-10 made the following observations:
"10. What is familiarly known as guideline valuation by the registering officers are figures which are found set out in a register called 'valuation guideline register' prepared in 1968 at the instance of the Board of Revenue, and revised from time to time. These guidelines were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make under S. 47A of the Act, when once a reference comes to him from the registering authority".
9. This Court also had an occasion to deal with the provisions contained in the Act, in particular, Section 45-A in R.Umaprasad (supra). After considering the relevant provisions of the Act, this court observed that determination of the market value only on the basis of the Government guidelines fixing the value for all the vacant 8 sites situated in a particular area without holding any enquiry for correctly arriving at market value, is bad in law. Having considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court and so also by this Court, in our opinion, the observations made in para-9 need to be modified / diluted in the following terms:
"The market value guidelines notified by the State Government would serve as prima facie material available before the Registering Authority to alert him regarding the value of the land / property covered by the instrument.
Keeping the market value guidelines in view, the registering authorities shall fix the market value depending upon the prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the instrument is situated. It will be only on objective satisfaction that the Authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued or consideration mentioned when it is presented for registration. The ultimate decision would be with the 9 Appellate Authority and while fixing the market value either at the inception or in appeal, the concerned authority shall take into consideration the market value guidelines published by the State Government. It is also made clear that the valuation of the property need not necessarily be either the same as mentioned in the guidelines or less. The value of the property varies from place to place or even from locality to locality in the same place and therefore, no absolute higher or minimum value can be pre-determined."
Paragraph-9 of the order impugned in the writ appeal, accordingly stands modified in terms of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE TL