Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

138) has held that to adopt figures prepared in the valuation guideline would be dangerous because they offer no guarantee of the truth or correctness of data. The Delhi High Court in Inder Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1985 Delhi
304) also has repeated the same expression that the price which a willing seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser is the test to determine the market value and it cannot be based on the opinion or information given by the Government. Therefore, from these chain of decisions, it is made clear, that the guideline value cannot be the market value of the property as the guideline value is intended for the collection of the Revenue. As the market value alone is the criteria to value the suit and in this case there is no contra evidence on the defendant's side to show that the property covered under Ex.A.1 is more that (sic than) the value given in the sale deed, as held in Varadarajulu v. Venkatakrishnan (1959) (1) M.L.J. (Notes of cases 9), the valuation given in the sale deed has to be accepted.

Therefore, the instructions issued by the Government for determination of the market value on the basis of basic valuation register were held illegal. The Collector, therefore, was obviously wrong in determining the compensation under Section 23 (1) on the basis of prevailing rates in 1992 as per basic valuation circulars."

(v) In 2004 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 377 (R.SAI BHARATHI v. J. JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS), the Apex Court, in paragraphs 22 and 24, held as follows :

"22. The guideline value has relevance only in the context of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by T.N.Act 24 of 1967) which provides for dealing with instruments of conveyance which are undervalued. The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. This position is clear in the explanation to Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp ( Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968. The said Explanation reads as follows :

16. In view of the above ratio decidendi fixed by the Supreme Court, the fixation of market value on the basis of guideline value or valuation register, summoned from Sub-Registrar's Office and the Engineer, is illegal and unsustainable.

17. The view expressed by Justice S.S.Subramani, in our view, is correct, as it is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The other view expressed by Justice Srinivasan is not correct, as the methods suggested by the Supreme Court for fixing the market value would not include the consideration of guideline value and valuation register. So, in our opinion, the said view is wrong.

18. Therefore, our conclusions are as follows :

(1) The guideline value, contained in the Basic Valuation Register, maintained by the Revenue Department or the Municipality for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration.
(2) Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine the market value. In this case, the guideline value alone has been considered, which, in our view, is illegal.