Karnataka High Court
Smt. B. Razia Razak vs The District Registrar, Prevention Of ... on 12 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT486, ILR2003KAR3233, 2004(1)KARLJ629, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 486, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2358, 2004 (3) KCCR 2213, (2003) 3 KCCR 2213, (2003) ILR (KANT) (4) 3233, (2004) 1 KANT LJ 629, (2004) 2 ICC 741
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner who had purchased two properties in respect of which the sale deeds had been presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, Bangalore, as on 9.8.2002 and in respect of which registration, further proceedings have been taken by the respondents, is now aggrieved by the orders dated 30th October 2002 vide Annexure-C & D, whereunder the 1st respondent District Registrar has directed the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 14,480/- being the differential stamp duty payable in respect of the pending document No. 30/2002-2003 and a sum of Rs. 23,780/ - in respect of pending document No. 31/2002-2003 and has sought for quashing of these two orders/demands.
2. The petitioner had presented the two documents for registration on 9th August 2002. The Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, before whom it was presented and who is the registering authority, was of the view that the true market value of the properties in question has not been stated in the documents and as such granted only provisional registration and simultaneously referred the two documents for proper determination of the market value of the properties, which is the subject matter of the documents on the premise that the properties are under valued, to the District Registrar, Prevention of Under Valuation of the Instruments, Jayanagar Division, Bangalore.
3.The District Registrar for Under Valuation thereafter issued two notices both dated 16.8.2002 copies of which are produced at Annexure A and B, apprising the petitioner about such reference by the Sub - Registrar and for determination of the market value of the properties in question and called upon the petitioner to submit supporting material to justify the valuation as intimated in the Instrument copies at Annexure A and B. The notices also warned the petitioner that if no proper explanation is furnished within the permitted time, the issue will be settled on the available material.
4.Sri Subrahmanya Jois, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had given a representation to the 1st respondent - the District Registrar as per Annexure-C dated 26th August 2002. The gist of the representation is that the subject lands mentioned in the sale deed are not valuable lands as there is no proper drinking water facility or sanitary facility for the area being a private layout in the locality and having regard to such circumstances, the value of the properties is not high or is as much as in other localities and requested the Registrar to take into consideration such aspects and to determine the property valuation, accept the difference of duty if any, payable and for release of the documents.
5.It is the case of the petitioner that there was no further notice or response from the authorities and the petitioner has been straight away called upon to pay the stamp duties as indicated earlier as per the two orders dated 30.10.2002 vide Annexures-D and E. It is aggrieved by these two orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
6. Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are vitiated by nonapplication of mind, are arbitrary and have been passed without taking into consideration relevant aspects in this regard. The learned Counsel invites the attention of the Court to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation Instruments) Rules, 1977, and submits that the Officer concerned was required to determine the value of the house site as indicated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and it was incumbent upon the 1st respondent to refer to the peculiar circumstances and the conditions prevailing in the locality in which the properties were situated as indicated in the representation dated 26.8.2002. But, on the other hand, the orders proceed on the premise that in spite of two notices dated 16.8.2002 and 28.8.2002 having been issued, there was no response on the part of the petitioner and as such the authority is left with no choice but to determine the value of the properties based on any other material which was available with the authority. The learned Counsel also points out that the impugned orders, apart from not being in conformity with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules which indicate the principles for determination of market value, is also bad, as it indicates that another notice dated 28.8.02 had been issued to which the writ petitioner has not responded while, in fact, the petitioner had not been favoured with any such further notice at all.
7. Sri B.P. Puttasiddaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents, while defending the action of the respondents submit that the record does not disclose that the representation dated 26.8.02 had ever been received at the office of the 1st respondent and that no such representation is available in the file and the authorities, in fact, have issued another notice dated 28.8.2002. The records produced by the learned HCGP indicate that the file in fact does not contain any` representation as in Annexure-C said to have been submitted by the petitioner and copy of yet another noticedated 28.8.2002 is also found in the records.
8. On a perusal of these two notices dated 16.8. 2002 and 28.8.2002, it is obvious that the two are one and the same except for the change in the date. Even earlier notice dated 16.8.2002 had indicated that the petitioner had 21 days time to produce supporting documents to justify the valuation as indicated in the sale deed and also indicated that such supporting documents can be produced before the Court by the petitioner personally appearing before the Court. Very strangely, while these notices did not even indicate the date of hearing on which day the petitioner was required to appear before the authority and produce the supporting documents, notices styles itself that the petitioner was required to appear before the Court. It is rather surprising, that a Quasi Judicial functionary like the District Registrar for Under Valuation of properties should describe himself as a Court, as is indicated in the notice. The authority is one which is required to investigate the instances of under valuation, determine the proper value of the properties, so that loss of revenue to the State is prevented and proper stamp duty is realized from the presenting documents for registration.
9. Unless there is an enabling provision or statutory recognition, describing such a functionary as a Court, the authorities cannot describe themselves as Courts. The authority is, at best, a Quasi Judicial functionary functioning as an administrative authority and incidentally required to pass order inclusive of determining of affecting the civil rights of parties. The authorities are required to comply with the principles of natural justice while so functioning, giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the affected and apprise the concerned persons the date of such hearing, look into the representation or submissions made on behalf of the concerned persons and then pass a reasoned order.
10. In this instant case, the impugned orders which are in furtherance of notice dated 16.8.2002 and 28.8.2002 do not indicate as to on which date such hearing had been fixed. The notices had also not fixed any date for the appearance of the parties before the so called Court. While the orders indicate that a notice dated 28.8.2002 had also been issued which is also not responded by the petitioner, there is no reason as to why the concerned authorities should have issued yet another notice dated 28.8.2002 even before the period of 21 days from the date of issue of the notice dated 16.8.02 had not expired.
11. Determination of the proper market value of the properties involved in any transactions and as mentioned in the sale deeds presented for registration, whether the properties are properly valued or in fact under valued, are routine matters and is the main function of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had to determine the proper value and while doing so can affect the civil rights of the parties inasmuch as the parties will have to pay the proper stamp duty as determined by the 1st respondent. In such matters, the procedure to be followed even if it was defective initially, over a period of time the concerned authority should evolve a correct and fair procedure to be followed. It is rather strange that even after 25 years of functioning of the part of the 1st respondent which is created for the purpose of Section 45-A of the Act, no such procedure has been evolved. It is a matter of utmost regret that a public authority who deals with civil rights of parties, do not function in a transparent and fair manner. This Court cannot help but take note of the fact that the office of Sub-Registrar and Office of the District Registrar for determination of under valuation are notorious for their nefarious activities and have been subject matter of adverse scrutiny and comment by vigilant institutions like the Lokayuktha for corruption and bribary charges. 12. Procedure which is not transparent, which does not call upon the parties to appear on a particular date, for giving representation or producing documents, a procedure where parties are kept in dark as to what may happen in the future, this Court cannot help, but observe is an arbitrary procedure vitiating the proceeding. Perhaps a fair and transparent procedure is not evolved by the authorities concerned only for extraneous reasons and for pressurizing the helpless citizens who are involved in such litigation.
13. Orders at Annexure-D and E are yet again instances of such erratic conduct on the part of the 1st respondent. It is high time that a proper procedure is put into action and the functioning of the 1st respondent is streamlined. It is but necessary that any notice issued by the 1st respondent should indicate the date of hearing of the case that is fixed for the appearance of parties and the parties should be apprised of that date.
14. Under the circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure D and E both dated 30.10.2002 are clearly unsustainable, being not only arbitrary, but also for violating the principles of natural justice. A proper opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to present her case and place the necessary material. The impugned order are quashed by issue of a Writ of certiorari and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent, District Registrar, to fix a fresh date of hearing giving opportunity to the petitioner to present her case, consider the materials and representation, if any, to be placed by the petitioner and to proceed to orders in accordance with law.
15. The representation at Annexure C which the learned HCGP submitted has not been received at the office of the 1st respondent, may now be treated as a part of the record as the same is part of the Writ Petition papers and as a representation on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the notice issued to her 1st respondent to consider any further representation to be made if made by the petitioner and then to pass appropriate orders. The 1st respondent shall pass orders as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today.
16. Writ Petition are allowed levying costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each petition recoverable from the 1st respondent Rule issued and made absolute.