Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in V.N.DEVADOSS V.CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER-CUM-INSPECTOR wherein it is held that the registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. He has further referred to an order wherein this Court by considering a similar issue in W.P.No.6260/2008 dated 18.11.2008 directed the Sub-Registrar to register the said certificate stating that between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, certain amount might be agreeable as sale consideration. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale certificate shall be taken into account by the registering officer and only after accepting the price disclosed in the document of conveyance, the registration shall be done.

4. The learned Government Advocate states that at the time of registration the registering authority is entitled to look into the fact whether the property is carrying any charge or not.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the V.N.Devadoss's case has occasioned to consider the similar issued as follows:

"15.The stand of the State is that what has been disclosed is clearly a sale value and the same cannot be termed as market value. There is fallacy in this argument.

16.Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.