Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Pointing out from the impugned orders, Mr. N. D. Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the revenue records, the land was recorded as agricultural land with bhumadhari interest. He also points out that the boundary of the land shows that the land surrounding the disputed plot are agricultural lands. Unless there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. according to him. the character of the said land cannot be treated to be residential (abadi) even for the purpose of determining the market value of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Therefore, according to him, the valuation of the land on the ground that the land is situated within town area and that it is in close proximity of residential area the land is to be treated with the potential of the residential plot, is wholly erroneous, misconceived and, therefore, cannot be sustained. According to him. it is the value as on the date of transfer that has to be calculated and not the future potential of the land that can be taken into account. He next contends that the land being agricultural land, the valuation is to be determined according to Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules and not otherwise. Since the valuation set forth is more than the value that could be determined under Rule 341, there was no authority or jurisdiction on the Collector or any other authority under Section 47A, read with Section 33 of the Stamp Act to make a reference. Therefore, according to him, the proceeding is wholly without Jurisdiction and void. According to him, it is only when the market value is less than the minimum value as provided in Rule 341, only then a reference could be made either under Section 33 or under Section 47A and not otherwise and as such, the reference is bad and, therefore, on such a reference the Collector could not have assumed Jurisdiction. He then contends that even then while calculating the market value, the Collector did not take into account any materials for the purpose of determination thereof. It is only on a presumption that the land is a residential plot and that the land in the area are to be determined on the circle rate, which is Rs. 300. per square metre. Therefore, this is perverse and not based on any material. According to him. in view of Rule 349, read with Section 47A of the Stamp Act. the market value could have been determined on various factors. But here, no such factor having been taken into consideration, the valuation is based on no material. He further contends this as an alternative submission and not his primary submission. He next contends that the Collector had not taken into account the materials placed on record, particularly the affidavit and the revenue records produced by him. He contends that the revlsional authority has also not gone into all these questions and had cursorily affirmed the order of the learned Collector. Therefore, the same suffers from same perversity as that of the order of the Collector. Therefore, the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside.

8. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 47A shows that when the registering authority finds that the value set forth in an instrument is less than the minimum value determined in accordance with rules, in that event the registering authority is empowered to refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. Rule 341 prescribes how the minimum market value is to be found out. Thus, a combined reading of Section 47A subsection (1) and Rule 341 shows that Rule 341 is a guideline for determining the minimum market value to find out if the valuation set forth in the instrument is even less than the minimum market value, and then he can assume Jurisdiction to refer the same to the Collector. Thus, Rule 341 is a guiding factor to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the minimum market value in order to enable the registering authority to satisfy itself that the instrument produced before him, is one fit for reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47A. We may note that the expression used "Is less than even the minimum market value". The use of the expression presupposes that the valuation is to be leas than the minimum value which could be determined according to rules. But at the same time, sub-rule (2) prescribes that without prejudice to sub-section (t), if the registering authority has reason to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument has not been truly set forth, then he can refer the matter to the Collector under sub-section (2). Thus, the contention of Mr. Kesari to the extent that unless the value is less than the minimum as provided in sub-section (1) read with Rule 341, the registering authority cannot assume Jurisdiction to refer the same under Section 47A and the Collector could not have assumed Jurisdiction upon such a reference and that the entire proceeding is void and without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. By reason of sub-section (1). when the value is less than the minimum in terms of Rule 341, then the registering authority may refer the same to the Collector. Then again by reason of sub-section (2), he has the same Jurisdiction to refer wherever he has reason to believe that the market value set forth in the instrument, has not been truly set forth even if the valuation set forth may be higher than the minimum market value. Thus. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Kesari that the proposition impugned in these proceedings is void or the orders passed are without Jurisdiction as such.

9. A combined reading of Section 33 and Section 47A along with Rules 340 to 350 indicates that there are two stages. The first stage is the satisfaction of the authorities, who are competent to make reference either under Section 33 or under Section 47A. For the purpose of making such a reference, the authorities competent to make such reference, are to satisfy themselves about the necessity of such reference. For that purpose, it has also provided in Rule 340 that what are the materials to be set forth in the instrument and Rule 341 is a guiding factor for the purpose of determining the minimum market value. This is a guideline provided for the purpose of determining the market value in order to enable the authorities concerned to determine as to whether the value set forth is less than the minimum market value and on the basis of such satisfaction, it is an enabling factor to make a reference by the authority competent to do so. Rule 341 has not provided any guideline for the purpose of determining the market value by the Collector. In fact it is a provision in order to enable as to whether a reference is to be made or not. Therefore, aid of Rule 341 cannot be taken in at the time of determination of the market value. Thus, I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Kesarl to the extent that in order to determine the market value, aid of Rule 341 is a must. On the other hand, the decision in the case of Kafca Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate, AIR 1986 All 107. which is also reported in 1986 ALJ 49 cited by both Mr. Kesari and Mr. Goswamt points out that Rule 341 is only a guiding factor and was framed by the Legislature only for limited purpose for providing a guideline. Only function of Rule 341 is to enable the registering authority to be satisfied that the market value is less than the minimum value so as to enable him to refer the document to the Collector for determination. Thus, I am fortified on my view which I have taken above by the ratio decidendl in the decision in the case of Koka Singh (supra), as laid down in paragraph 15 thereof.

11. Mr. Kesari has also relied on a decision in the case of Basli Ram v. Nagar Nlgam, Ghaziabad, 1999 (90) RD 636. in which it was held that unless there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, the character of the land cannot be changed. This decision also may not help us for our present purpose in view of the fact that Mr. Goswami had not disputed about the character of the land as that of agricultural one.

12. Section 27 of the Stamp Act provides the factors that affect the duty set forth in an instrument. In sub-section (2), it provides that an instrument relating to an immovable property chargeable with ad valorem duty on the value of the property requires setting forth of various factors as may be prescribed in the Rules and the Act. In Rule 340. the particulars which are to be incorporated in the instrument have since been prescribed. The purpose of this provision is to find out as to the duty payable on the instrument in order to facilitate the determination of the valuation set forth in the instrument itself. Such setting forth is necessary in order to enable the authority competent to refer either under Section 33 or under Section 47A to determine the market value to find out that the market value has been- truly set forth in the instrument. In case it is not truly set forth, in that event, the authorities mentioned in the said two Sections are competent to make a reference. Now once a reference is made either under Section 33 or under Section 47A, the Collector can assume Jurisdiction even if the satisfaction of the referring authority is imperfect. Inasmuch upon such reference, a person does not suffer any prejudice since it is subject to determination by the Collector in accordance with the provisions provided in the said Section and the Rules which requires giving of an opportunity to the party concerned. Therefore, even if the referring authority had not acted properly or there was no scope for its satisfaction for making a reference still then the reference would not be bad and such a situation will not preclude the jurisdiction of the Collector to enter into the reference. It is open to the Collector to find out in the reference that the valuation has been truly set forth in that event it may dismiss the reference. Therefore, assumption of jurisdiction by the Collector even on a bad reference, does not prejudice a person and as such, it cannot be contended that the reference is bad and as such the Collector had no jurisdiction. On the other hand, even on such a reference, the Collector has jurisdiction to determine the market value or to find out the validity of the reference. The Collector has every Jurisdiction to determine as to whether the reference has been vatldly made or not or the valuation has been truly set forth or not.