Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: set forth value in M. Krishnan And 44 Others vs The District Collector, Erode ... on 6 November, 1997Matching Fragments
43. To this extent, the functions of the Registering Authority is quasi judicial in nature and he has to come to a conclusion that the market value of the property dealt under the document had not been truly set forth and after completion of registration, he could make a reference. Atleast some reasons should be recorded and immediately after completion of registration or sooner thereafter, a reference has to be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.
44. In the present case, no reason had been recorded before or at the time of registration of instruments and for more than two years, the Registering Authority had kept silent and only on 25.9.1997, a reference has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as disclosed in the counter- affidavit. No records have been placed before this Court to show that before registration, the Registering Authority had recorded reasons nor he had reasons to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of conveyance or release, has not been truly set forth in the instruments. As such, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the date of presentation of the instruments, as well as on the date of completion of registration, the Registering Authority had no reasons to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject-matter of conveyance or release has not been truly set forth. That being the factual position, such a conclusion cannot be arrived at after two years and a reference could not be made in terms of Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
74. The Registering Authority did not entertain any doubt, nor he had any reason to believe that the market value of the property had not been set out truly. Having completed registration, as an after thought, it is not open to the Registering Authority to refer the matter to the Collector in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and at any rate after two years.
75. The action of the Registering Authority is arbitrary and he has no jurisdiction or authority to make a reference, as in the present case, he did not entertain any doubt nor he had any reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of instruments of conveyance, has not been truly set forth in the instruments and he had obviously accepted the market value set forth in the instruments and completed the registration without any doubt and without entertaining any reasonable belief as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.
76. The action of the first respondent in making a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act after a lapse of two years is without authority nor the first respondent could, at this point of time hold that the executants had not truly set forth the market value of the property dealt under the instruments. So also it cannot be decided by him at this point of time that the instruments had been under-valued or insufficiently stamped. These reasons compel this Court to reject the contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
87. In Hema v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1980 (I) MLJ 3 NRC Ramaswami, J (as he then was) held thus:
"In the nature of things the guidelines in Valuation Guidelines Register have no evidentiary value. They are only intended to give information or instruction to the registering authorities so as to enable them to come to a reasonable belief within the meaning of section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance had or had not been truly set forth in the document. After a reference is made, the collector has to determine, the market value with reference to the explanation in Section 47-A. The guidelines may constitute sufficient material for the registering authority to entertain a plea that the true value had not been set forth in the document. But it cannot be a substantive evidence against the petitioner. In fact, it may not be even called a public document."