Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This process of reassessment cannot be taken as a matter of course in any and every case. The Collector can assume jurisdiction in this regard only under two given situation, that is to say, either on a reference from the concerned registering authority which has registered the document in question or by acting suo motu on his own study of the records. In either case, there must be a reasonable basis for the proceedings to be initiated. In the first case, the registering authority himself must have reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the other case, the Collector must on a study of the instrument in question, believe, and must have reasons for believing, that the market value set forth in the instrument has not been truly so set forth. In Madras then so called, Valuation Guidelines Register was prepared in 1968 as instructed by the Board of Revenue and was revised from time to time. These guidelines were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instrument had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make under Section 47-A of the Act, when once a reference comes to him from the registering authority. In a case reported in (1981) 94 Mad LW 685 (690) : (AIR 1982 Mad 138 (143)). The Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund v. Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. the Madras High Court held thus:

".. ....... These guidelines were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make under Section 47-A of the Act, when once a reference comes to him from the registering authority. The Collector, under Section 47-A, cannot shirk his responsibility of determining the market value by adopting the guidelines, nor can he fix the market value without proper materials and evidence to support it. The very idea of an inquiry contemplated by Section 47-A and the detailed procedure prescribed in the relevant rules goes to show that the Collector's finding must be verifiable by evidence. The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were not prepared on the basis of any open hearing of the parties concerned or of any documents with a view to eliciting the market value of the properties concerned. They were based on date gathered broadly with reference to classification of lands, grouping of lands and the like. This being so, the Collector acting under Section 47-A cannot regard the guidelines valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. To do so would be to surrender his statutory obligation to determine market value on the basis of evidence, which is a judicial or a quasi judicial function which he has to perform. To adopt figures prepared at the instance of the Board of Revenue in the valuation guidelines which are merely a compilation of data by subordinate officials of an administrative authority on the basis of administrative action would be dangerous, because they offer no guarantee of truth or correctness of the data, not being susceptible to check or verification by a judicial or quasi judicial process of evaluation of evidence."