Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Office-cum- Inspector & Ors.2, which arose under Section 47A as applicable to Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held that it is not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fide of the parties. Therefore, the basis for the 2008(4) SCC 720 (2009) 7 SCC 438  exercise of power under section 47A of the Act is the wilful undervaluation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty. The Registering Officer cannot have any reason to believe that the market value of the property was not truly set forth in an instrument of transfer executed pursuant to the order of a court, when the property was sold at a public auction after the publication of the advertisement in newspapers.

a) there must be wide publicity of the proposed sale and particularly there shall be publication of advertisement in at least one newspaper having wide circulation in the concerned city/town/ district.

b) The purchaser of the property must not be connected with or related to the authority/ officer conducting the sale.

13. In the discussion over the objective and purport of Section 47A of the Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that they were in pari materia insofar as they confer power on the Registering Officer not to register an instrument when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. The difference in language of the Section was not significant. When a property is sold in a private sale, the registering officer has the power to determine the actual value of the property. As legal fictions are limited for the purpose for which they are created and cannot be widened by Rules made under the Act and no such fiction is required to be provided for determining the price of the property when it is sold in the open market. Thus, the definition of “Market Value” as under Section 2(16B) of the Act would not apply to the property if actually sold in the open market.

20. In the Company matter, emphasis was placed on the intention of the State Legislature, i.e., to accept ‘market value’ as set forth in an instrument by which the immovable property was transferred or acquired by the Central or the State Government or any other authority under the Central or State Government, etc. without any reference of Section 2(16B) and 47A of the Act, as can be seen from Rule 3C(9) of the West Bengal Stamp Rules. It was contended that there was, thus, no question of intention of any defraud or not disclose the correct price in a court sale and as per the observations in V.N. Devadoss12 case the Registering Authority cannot be permitted to sit over appeal over the decision of the court, especially a Constitutional Court and doubt the consideration determined in a court authorised sale.

(supra) (supra)

26. We do not accept the contention that the mere wordings of these different provisions in any way take away the fundamental intent with which the provision was brought into force and specifies so in the same manner though albeit in a different language. In a court auction following its own procedure, the Registering Officer cannot have any reason to believe that the market value of the property was not duly set forth – a pre-requisite for a Registering Authority to exercise its power under the said Section.