Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the year 2009 itself in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 in para Nos.16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are being brought before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by citing V.N. Devadoss's case, as a binding precedent, had already decided several similar cases. A learned Single Judge has already decided cases on similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's case. Even when the State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the „march of law‟ and „follow the binding precedent‟ only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate courts and the executive to follow the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as a binding precedent without having to apply their discretion once again. Once the law is settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it would be the incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate Courts, but also the Executive across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum in all cases of similar nature.

11. In V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438, while dealing specifically with regard to the issue which is framed in the present case i.e., whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee should be paid on market value or on the value fetched on the property in an auction sale, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clearly and firmly laid down the law to the effect that the Registration Authorities cannot demand payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on market value. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has explained the difference between market value and amount fetched in an auction and also the process involved in bringing a property for auction where the lending institution would obtain Market Value Certificate before notifying the property for auction. Para Nos.16 to 18 of the said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are usefully extracted hereunder:

12. As the law has been clearly laid down in V.N. Devadoss's case (supra), Single Benches of this Court, following the said case as a precedent, have consistently allowed several Writ Petitions brought by the successful auction purchasers. The Intra-Court Appeals filed by the State were dismissed thereby confirming the Orders of the Single Benches since the said Orders were passed by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's case. There are already several reported Judgments on the very same issue in the law journals.

18. The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the territory of India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. This goes without saying that the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is final by its very nature, binds the executive and the executive cannot take a view different from the law that is laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 shall be adhered to by the executive namely the Department of Registration in the present case. They cannot insist on the auction purchaser to pay Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the market value in respect of a property which has been purchased in an auction sale, if such auction is held by the Court or the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer.