Karnataka High Court
H S Janardhana Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
W.P.NOS.37673-37674 OF 2011[GM-ST/RN]
BETWEEN:
1. H.S.JANARDHANA RAO
S/O H.T.SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O 4TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR
VARADAHALLI ROAD
SAGAR 577 401
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. NAGENDRA
S/O K.G.NEELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
SRIRAMAPURAM EXTENSION
SAGAR 577 401
SHIMOGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV.,)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. CENTRAL VALUATION COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION OF STAMPS
BANGALORE 560 001
BY ITS SECRETEARY
2
3. CENTRAL VALUATION SUB-COMMITTEE
SAGAR TALUK,
SAGAR 577 401
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
BY ITS SECRETARY
4. SUB-REGISTRAR
SAGAR TALUK
SAGAR 577 401
SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP]
------
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F, THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER
DATED 21.6.11 OF THE CENTRAL VALUATION
COMMITTEE (R2) APPROVING THE STATEMENT OF
ESTIMATION OF MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTIES SENT
BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE AT SAGAR IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES SITUATED IN SAGAR
TALUK SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SAGAR
SUB-REGISTRAR AND ALSO ANNEXURE-G, THE LIST OF
REVISED MARKET/GUIDELINE RATES FIXED IN RESPECT
OF SAGAR TALUK/SAGAR CITY MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings/order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the Central Valuation Committee vide Annexure-F 3 approving the statement of estimation of market value of properties sent by the Sub-Committee, Sagar. They have also sought for quashing the list of revised market/guideline rates fixed in respect of Sagar Taluk and Sagar City Municipal limits vide Annexure-G.
2. According to the petitioners, guideline market value fixed by respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 are illogical, excessive and arbitrary.
3. The petitioners in these writ petitions do not disclose as to how they are interested in questioning the notification. They are neither purchasers of any of the properties nor sellers of any of the properties. However, they have stated that they are intending to purchase immovable property at Sagar. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any ground for the purpose of 4 interfering in the guideline market value fixed by respondent Nos.2 & 4, in the writ petitions filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The State Government has framed rules for the purpose of estimation, publication and revision of market value guidelines of properties. Said rules reveal the procedure to be followed by the Committees while fixing the market value guidelines. Under Sub-section (2) of Rule 5 of Karnataka Stamp (Constitution of Central Valuation Committee for Estimation, publication and Revision of Market Value Guidelines of Properties) Rules, 2003, the Sub-Committee on receipt of the instructions publish the intention of such estimation or revision, as the case may be, in the newspapers and also on the notice board of important offices, which means, the draft 5 notification needs to be published in order to invite objections, if any, from the public. In the matter on hand, the Sub-committee after due deliberations and after taking technical opinion in the matter has published the notification. 44 persons including Local Consumer Forum filed statement of objections. After considering the statement of objections, it was decided by the Sub-committee, Sagar to accept the guideline market rates and to refer such estimation to the Central Valuation Committee. The Central Valuation Committee thereafter accepted the report of the Sub-committee and consequently the guideline market value is fixed in respect of each area of Sagar Taluk. The document at Annexure-C is the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee. Annexure-F is the resolution passed by the Central Valuation Committee.
6
5. Merely because certain procedural lapses have occurred while coming to the conclusion, this Court would not interfere in the conclusion reached by the Committees, particularly when no prejudice or injustice is caused to the petitioners or the public at large. Mere making out a law point that too on a procedural aspect may not be sufficient for the petitioners to get the reliefs in the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Injustice to be caused to them has to be highlighted. In the matter on hand, this Court finds that neither the petitioners nor any of the public would be put to injustice by such guideline market value prescribed by the respondents. Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 provides an opportunity to the aggrieved party. If any of the party is aggrieved by 7 the erroneous valuation done by the Sub-Registrar or by the order relating to impounding of document, it is open for such party to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 45-A of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing will pass appropriate orders. Even thereafter, one more opportunity is available for the aggrieved persons to approach the Regional Commissioner by filing appeal under Section 45-A(5) of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The Appellate Authority will re-determine the market value of the instrument and thereafter appropriate stamp duty may have to be paid by the aggrieved persons. The Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 prescribe the procedure for determination of market value. Thus the market value of the instrument will have to be determined based on 8 the aforementioned provisions. Merely because the guideline market value are notified, the same would not take away any right of the citizen to contend that the market value of his property is lesser than or higher than the guideline market value. Guideline market value is not the actual market value. It is only for the guidance of the public as well as officials of concerned department.
As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal and others Vs. District Magistrate/Collector, Ghaziabad and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2126, the guideline market value rates fixed by the respondents are not final and it is merely a prima- facie determination of rate of an area concerned only to give guidance to the Registering Authority 9 to test prima-facie whether the instrument has properly described the value of the property. The guideline market value is neither final for the authority nor to one subjected to pay the stamp duty. Such guideline market value does not take away the right of such person to show that the property in question is correctly valued as he gets an opportunity in case of under-valuation to prove it before the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Authority, after reference is made. Thus neither the petitioners nor anybody will be any way affected by the guideline market value fixed by the respondents. Intending buyers or purchasers of the property are entitled to have recourse to law under the provisions of Section 45-A of Karnataka Stamp Act r/w Rule 5 of Karnataka Stamp (Constitution of Central Valuation Committee for Estimation, Publication 10 and Revision of Market Value Guidelines of Properties) Rules, 2003. Hence, no interference is called for.
Petitions fail and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-