Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vimla Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:4280
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 579 of 2019
1. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Kishori Lal Saraf Aged About 58 Years R/o
Village Belkharikha, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf Aged About 56 Years
R/o. Village Belkharikha, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Registration And Stamp,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector Of Stamps, Surguja (Ambikapur), District : Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Commissioner Surguja, Division Ambikapur, District : Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.02.2024
1) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No. A/16/R/B-105/237/2017 dated 01.06.2018 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 47(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act, 1899) was dismissed and the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Collector were affirmed.
2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioners purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 4578 admeasuring 0.109 & 0.012 hectares situated at village Ambikapur, Patwari Halka No. 5, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh from one Tribhuneshwar Sharan Singh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 2 Dev. The amount of consideration to the tune of Rs.2,89,600/- was paid to the owner of the property on 18.05.2009 and a sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Ambikapur. The Sub-Registrar assessed the market value of the property on the basis of the guidelines of 2009-10 wherein it was found that the sale papers were undervalued and proper stamp duty had not been affixed, therefore, the matter was referred to the Collector of Stamps according to the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Act, 1899. The Sub-Registrar opined that the market value of the property would be Rs.91,94,700/- and determined the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.6,45,616/-. A case was registered by the Collector of Stamps. Notice was issued to the petitioners and on oral prayer; the Collector of Stamps inspected the spot and found that the plot is situated 10 meters away from the main road. The petitioners filed their reply and thereafter, the Collector of Stamps calculated the stamp duty, assessed the market value of the property to the tune of Rs.63,02,255/- and stamp duty on such market value to the tune of Rs.4,23,827/- and the petitioners were directed to affix stamp duty of Rs.4,02,827/-, in addition to stamp duty of Rs.21,000/- already paid. The order passed by the Collector dated 17.07.2010 was challenged before the Commissioner and thereafter, before the Board of Revenue but both the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed. The last order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 01.06.2018 and the same is under challenge in the present petition.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without holding any enquiry and without physical inspection, the order was passed by the Collector. He would further submit that the two sale deeds were executed by the owner of the adjacent plots and the stamp duty in those sale deeds was assessed treating them as the agricultural lands and nominal stamp duty was affixed in those sale deeds. He would Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 3 also submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and no evidence was recorded, which is a mandatory requirement according to the provisions of sub-sections (1-A), 2 & (3- A) of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899.
4) In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur and Ors., reported in 2012 AIR (Chh) 34 particularly paragraphs 19 to 24, which are reproduced herein below for reference:-
"19. As mentioned in W.P. (Art. 227) Nos.638/2011, 642/2011 & 1139/2011, a factory namely M/s. Mangat Sponge Steel Private Limited is coming near Bilha. Before the decision of starting of said factory or other companies, the lands situate near Bilha were only agricultural lands for agricultural use. At present, the cultivators/agriculturists were not using the land for agricultural purposes, but installation of factory by itself is a major factor for increase of market value of the lands which has not been considered by the Board of Revenue while passing the order impugned and same is a special feature having a bearing on valuation of property which will effect the price of lands situate near Bilha or its surrounding areas. At the time of determination of market value of land, the Collector of Stamps is required to hold enquiry and give complete opportunity of hearing to the parties. As per claim of the private respondents, complete opportunity of hearing has not been given to the parties.
20. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohabir Singh's case (supra) and R. Sai Bharathi's case, guidelines are the basis for assessing prima facie true or correct market value and not sacrosanct. In the present case, the Collector of Stamps was required to examine the true or correct market value and for the purpose of such enquiry/ examination, aforesaid Guidelines may be used, but not as a conclusive.
21. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Trideshwar Dayal, the Collector of Stamps is authorized to examine the correctness of the valuation of property and for the same, the Collector of Stamps was required to conduct a detailed enquiry. In the present case, the Collector of Stamps has not conducted detailed enquiry and has not provided complete opportunity to both the parties.
22. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of V.N. Devadoss, the basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is willful under valuation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 4 proper stamp duty. Deliberate under valuation of the property by itself is not fraudulent intention.
23. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Chand Bansal, the Collector of Stamps is empowered to assess different values shown in biennially statement recording circle rate. As held by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Mohali Club, the registering authority can refer the matter after registration of the document to the Collector of Stamps, if he has reason to believe that there is deliberate under- valuation and such reference is not a mechanical act but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding that there is an under-valuation.
24. In the present case, the Sub-Registrar has referred the matters after considering the Guidelines and average market value of the lands. In the light of aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and the provisions of law, the Collector of Stamps was under obligation to enquire into the matter relating to undervaluation of the property for the purpose of stamps & registration, and was also under obligation to provide complete opportunity of hearing/ adducing evidence to both the parties i.e. also to the State Government who may be the loser if proper stamp duty is not paid, and also provide opportunity to the parties before arriving at any finding relating to a particular finding ignoring the finding that the builder/person has purchased the property for construction of building or colony."
5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. He would further submit that the Collector of Stamps himself inspected the spot and found that the plot is situated 10 meters away from the main road and according to the existing guidelines he valued the stamp duty. He would also submit that the petitioners appeared before the Collector and participated in the proceedings. He would further contend that there is a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Collector of Stamps, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue; therefore, there is no scope for interference.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.
7) Section 47-A(1) of the Act, 1899 which is relevant for the disposal of the present case is reproduced herein below:-
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 5 "
47-A. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with. -- (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument finds that the market value of any property which is the subject matter of such instrument has been set forth less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules under this Act, he shall before registering such instrument refer the same to the Collector for the determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon."
8) In the present case, the petitioners have purchased the plot bearing Khasra No. 4578 admeasuring 0.109 and 0.012 hectares respectively and a sale-deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar upon which the stamp duty of Rs.21,000/- was affixed. The Sub-Registrar, Ambikapur found that the stamp duty paid by the petitioners is deficient according to the guidelines. The Sub-Registrar assessed the value of the property to the tune of Rs.91,94,700/- and assessed the stamp duty of Rs.6,45,616/-. The matter was referred to the Collector of Stamps. It is not in dispute that the Collector of Stamps visited the plot and found that the plot is situated 10 meters away from the main road and on the basis of the guidelines of 2009-10, he assessed the market value of the property. The Collector assessed the value of the property according to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975.
9) With regard to the opportunity of hearing as argued by counsel for the petitioners, the matter was referred to the Collector by the Sub- Registrar where the petitioners appeared through an Advocate. Notice was issued, a reply was filed and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. No application was moved by the petitioners to lead any evidence to prove the case, though there was sufficient opportunity available to the petitioners to prove the contrary. The assessment of the market value was done by the Sub-Registrar as well as by the Collector on the basis of physical inspection and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 6 guidelines and the petitioners could not produce any documents to counter the guidelines and the outcome of physical verification. According to the provisions of Sections 47-A & 3-A of the Act, 1899, the Collector has the power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses including the parties to the instrument, or any of them and to compel the production of documents by the same means and so far as may be in the same manner, as is provided in the case of civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, there is no dispute between the petitioners and the seller therefore there was no reason to compel those parties to appear before the Collector. When the Collector came to the conclusion that the property is situated 10 meters away from the main road and according to the guidelines, the value of the property would be 91,94,700/-, there was no reason for the Collector of Stamps to record evidence of any government official. The case was based on the documentary evidence. The petitioners ought to have moved an application to lead evidence to prove the contrary but no attempt was made in this regard.
10) In the matter of State of Chhattisgarh (supra), it is held that the guidelines are the basis for assessing prima facie true or correct market value and the Collector of Stamps is required to examine the true or correct market value and for the purpose of such enquiry/examination the guidelines may be used, but not as a conclusive. It is further observed that the Collector of Stamps is empowered to assess the different values shown in the documents. It is also observed that the Collector of Stamps is under obligation to provide the complete opportunity of hearing/adducing evidence to both the parties.
11) In the present case, sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to file reply etc. The petitioners were represented before Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4280 7 the Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue through their counsel. The spot inspection was conducted by the Collector of Stamps himself in the presence of the petitioners and their counsel. No application was moved by the petitioners to lead evidence and the issue of Section 47-A(1) & 3-A of the Act, 1899 and the question of opportunity of hearing is being raised by the petitioners for the first time before this Court whereas this issue was never raised either before the Collector or the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue even though the petitioners have been afforded an appropriate opportunity of hearing and the Collector Stamps has rightly assessed the market value of the property and assessed the deficit stamp duty.
12) In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any error of law. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi