Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the third respondent Joint Sub Registrar, Tindivanam before referring the matter to the competent Authority, has not recorded the reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the true value of the property was not set forth in the documents and the documents were required to be referred to the competent authority for determination of the correct market value and his failure to comply with such mandatory requirement renders the entire proceedings and the outcome of the impugned order to be ex facie bad in law and vitiated.

11.Regarding the other grounds as referred to above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the judgments above cited that failure on the part of the Registering Officer to perform the statutory obligation by recording any reason to believe that the true market value has not been set forth in the document, before referring the document for determination of the market value, is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules and against the well laid down legal principles and the same has also prejudiced the valuable rights of the parties concerned causing serious injustice.

18. In Ezhilarasi's case reported in 2009 (1) CTC 698, it is held by this Court that onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document tendered for registration and when there is a doubt that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, the guideline value is only a prima facie guide for ascertaining the market value and the Department will have to go by the various parameters set down in the rules for determination of the market value, if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the said document. It is further held therein that it must be noted that a mere fact of difference in value stated in the instrument and the market value, per se, does not justify the invoking of the provisions under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, that only if and when the authorities have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document that the Registering Officer, after registration the document, may refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property. Thereupon, as per Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector holds an enquiry as prescribed under the rules and determine the market value of the property. Thus, in all cases of Section 47-A proceedings, law requires that there are prima facie materials at the hands of the Registering Authority to form an opinion as to the market value not truly set forth in the instrument and this leads to an enquiry and a final order passed depending on the outcome of the enquiry. The invoking of the jurisdiction on a sheer difference in price stated in the instrument with the market price, would only make the exercise an automatic and ritualistic exercise opposed to the very scheme of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

19. In the Special Deputy Collector's case reported in 2004 (1) CTC, our High Court has observed as follows:

12. What is the market value of the land is what a willing buyer is ready to pay to a willing vendor at the price agreed to. It may be that the lands may be used for the purpose of letting industrial effluent and for treatment and it may incidentally be part of an industrial activity. But that cannot constitute a ground to value the land as industrial site.

20. That being the legal position, if the contention raised on the side of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is appreciated in the legal proposition, as above laid down by the Supreme Court, Full Bench, Division Bench and Single Judges of our High Court, it would compel this court to hold that the proceedings referring the documents for determination of the market value, without recording any reason to say that the document is undervalued, thus without performing the statutory obligation, cast upon the third respondent Registering Officer, to record such reasons to arrive at a decision that the documents are undervalued and the same are required to be referred to the authority concerned to determine the actual market value of the property is contrary to the procedure laid down under law and is ex facie, illegal. Furthermore, no material is made available to show that the third respondent/Registering Officer, on the basis of such material, arrived at the conclusion that the true value is not set forth in the documents. In the absence of one such material, the proceedings initiated under Sec.47A is legally unsustainable, as such, the proceedings initiated for determination of the market value and the out come of such proceedings, fixing the value of the property covered under Doc Nos.487 and 488/2002 at Rs.498/- per sq.ft. and Rs.95/- per sq.ft respectively and demanding additional stamp duty, on the basis of such exorbitant value fixed, is hence arbitrary and bad in law and null and void.