Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12 The appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18319/2007 dated 23/2/2010 as well as reported judgment in the case of Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 2006 [2] GLH 775. Both the judgments are though of the Ld. Single Judge, specifically confirmed that the respondents have no authority either to impound the document or to reopen the valuation only upon the report of the auditor, under section 39 and that burden of proof to determine the market value is upon the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority and they have to justify fixation of higher market value. Therefore, in the present case, once certificate under section 31 was issued by the respondents, they should not be allowed to reopen their own valuation after four years to say that valuation of the property is higher, relying only upon the Auditor s report. Whereas the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in V N Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer reported in 2009 GLHEL SC 43655 [Civil Appeal No. 3411/2009 decided on 8/5/2009] specifically confirmed and held that when any property has been purchased as per open offer, question of undervaluation does not arise. In the given case, when property was purchased under the directions of BIFR and AAIFR, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the market value is price of the property which can be fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of instrument and, therefore, stamp duty is payable on such sale price when the Stamping Authority had issued a notice to the purchaser in that case, to pay the stamp duty as per market value.