Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: set forth value in Smt. Harvinder Kaur And Ors. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 7 December, 2006Matching Fragments
10. The amended provisions of Section 47-A of the Act reads as under:
If the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (No. 16 of 1908), while registering any instrument has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
11. From perusal of said section, it is clear that Registrar can demand additional stamp duty whenever he is of the opinion that market value put forth in the document is not truly set forth in the instrument. Said section, nowhere indicates that the Registrar can exercise said power only in case of fraud or evasion of stamp duty. The object of registration is not only to prevent the evasion of stamp duty but to provide authority to the execution of document.
12. After perusing the aforesaid judgments in the case of Sub-Registrar. Kodad Town and Mandal 1998 AP 252 supra. S.P. Padmavathi (supra) and Smt. Shantidevi Prasad 2001 Pat 161 supra, I find that said judgments are based on interpretation of Section 47-A of the Act as applicable in their respective states. So far as State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned. the position is made clear by explanation of Section 47-A of the Act, which was inserted by M.P. Act 30 of 1997 which came into effect from 15 11-1997 Said explanation read as under:
15. In the present case. the sale deed was presented before the Registrar on 5-12-1997 and the Registrar has referred the matter to the Collector vide Annexure P-2 dated 5-1-1998. From perusal of Annexure P-2. it is clear that the Registrar has no-where recorded any reasons to believe that the market value shown in the instrument is not truly set forth. He has merely recorded that the document is received for registration from the 5th Additional District Judge. Gwalior. He has also mentioned that he has not inspected in spot and asked the Collector to decide the market value after inspection. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the Registrar had reasons to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument is not true. Unless and until the Registrar records such reasons. he has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Collector. Reason to believe is a condition precedent for exercising jurisdiction under Section 47-A and so long as this ingredient is not present in the order of the Sub-Registrar. he has no jurisdiction. to refer the matter to the Collector. Reason to believe means a cogent reason for believing that the value shown in the instrument is not truly set forth and such reason should be based on material on record.
16. In the present case. the Registrar has not at all mentioned any reason or not even made any averment. He has reasons to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument is not true. Therefore. in absence of such averments by the Registrar. he has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Collector for registration. In such circumstances. on this point only this petition deserves to be allowed and impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
17. In the result. petition is allowed and impugned orders Annexure P-2 dated 5-1-1998. P-4 dated 24-7-2001. P-5 dated 2.4. 2002 and P-6 dated 5-5-2003 are set aside.