Calcutta High Court
The Registrar Of Assurances vs Ai Champdany Industries Ltd & Anr on 5 May, 2008
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
1
APOT No. 168 of 2008
ACO No.36 of 2008
BIFR No.20 of 1991
C.A.No.30 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
THE REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES, KOLKATA Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR Defendant/Respondent
For Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr.K.N. Mukherjee, Adv. For Defendant/Respondent : Mr.S.B.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv. Mr.D.Basak, Adv. Mr.A.Guha Roy, Adv.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANKAR PRASAD MITRA Date : 5th May, 2008.
The Court : After perusing the application for condonation of delay and after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we find that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and is thus disposed of.
There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Hon'ble First Court dated 10th March, 2008 whereby the Hon'ble First Court directed the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata to register the Deed of Conveyance executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the applicant. There is no dispute that before the Hon'ble First Court the appellant has filed an affidavit and in the said affidavit the appellant had already admitted the purchase price in respect of the immovable property in question as given by the respondent/auction purchaser. It is not in dispute that the property is being sold in court auction and that too has been specifically stated in the rules 2 framed under the Stamp Act. Rule 3(7)the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001 specifically stated the manner of determination of market value and furnishing of particulars relating to any property as follows :
"3(7).- on receipt of any instrument referred to in sub-rule (2) in relation to a property together with the statement in Form I, Form II, Form III or Form IV, as the case may be, annexed thereto. If the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may make such enquiries and take into account such court decision. Information, report or record from any court or any officer or authority of the Central Government petitioner the State Government or any local authority or local body or any person having knowledge relating to market value of the property of similar nature and area, and situated in the same locality or in a comparable locality as he deems fit, for ascertaining the market value of the property and proper stamp duty chargeable."
It has also been stated in Rule 3(8) of the said Rules that on the basis of enquiries, court decision, information, report or records referred to in sub-rule (7),as the case may be, the registering officer shall ascertain the market value of the property and shall pass an order in writing to that effect in From I, Form II, Form III or Form IV, as the case may be. Therefore, it transpires from the said rules that it is the duty of the said registering authority to accept the valuation at which the property was sold in court auction and therefore they are bound to register the document on the basis of the valuation as stated in the court order.
Accordingly, in our considered opinion the Hon'ble First Court has correctly came to the conclusion that assessing the stamp duty on market value is not applicable in a court sale. Even in a decision passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 86 CWN 283 (Durgesh Kumari Devi Vs. Bimal Kumar Jhajharia & Ors.) it has been held that the execution of 3 a conveyance for the sale of land in execution of a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of such land is not a private sale of land and consequently section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 does not apply.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the market value cannot have any relevance in respect of court sale and therefore the registering authority cannot insist on the market value when the property is being sold by Court in auction. Furthermore, the appellant in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble First Court have also accepted the said value. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court.
We have been informed by the learned senior counsel opposing the application that a contempt application has been filed by the respondent. We, therefore, extend the time to enable the registering authority to register the deed of conveyance in respect of the immovable properties in favour of the respondent herein in terms of the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court within a period of eight weeks from date.
The application, therefore, must fail and is hereby dismissed. Undertakings are discharged.
The appeal is also treated as on the day's list and is dismissed on the above terms.
All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J.) km RO(Ct)