Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. I have given notice to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and called for the record of the 1st respondent's office. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.

6. The learned Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A. P., 1989 (3) ALT 677 and submitted that the 1st respondent sent the twelve pending documents to the District Registrar, Ranga-reddy District who is designated as Collector under the Indian Stamp Act for the purpose of determination of duty under S.47-A inasmuch as he felt that having regard to the value in the 'basic value register', the documents are grossly under-valued. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the judgment of this Court in the aforementioned case, the basic value register can be a relevant guide and the 1st respondent was independently' satisfied on the basis of the entries in the basic value register that the value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. He has drawn my attention to the pro forma submitted to the District Registrar under Rule 3(4) of the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975. Column 8 says the "nature, market value or consideration and the stamp duty payable thereon in the opinion of the registering officer". In column 10, the registering officer has to submit his remarks as to how the details in Column 8 are arrived at. Under this Column, the registering officer has stated that "as per M.V. Rs. 120/- per sq. yard". The abbreviation 'M.V.' obviously denotes 'Market Value'. The learned Government Pleader then invited my attention to the averments in the counter. In the counter, it is stated that in the year 1989-90, the lands in S. Nos. 7 and 9 of Mansoorabad village were sold as house sites and the value mentioned in the sale-deeds was Rs. 80/- per sq. yard. It is stated that as per the basic vaule register, the lands in S. Nos. 8 and 9 were being treated as house sites from the year 1975 onwards. Between 1975 and 1980, the value of the lands was noted in the register as Rs. 2/- per sq. yard and thereafter up to 1987, the value was noted as Rs. 15/- per sq. yard. During the years 1988 to 1990, the value was increased to Rs.80/- per sq. yard and from 16-8-1990 onwards, the value of the lands in the said S. Nos. was further increased to Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. It 'is then explained as to how the basic value register is prepared. The 1st respondent states that "after taking into ,consideration all the above material available in my office I was satisfied that the petitioners have not truly set forth the market value of the lands in the sale-deeds presented for registra-tion"and he therefore referred the documents under Section 47-A to the Collector without registering the documents. With reference to the enquiry under Rule 3(3), the 1st respondent states in the counter that it is only an enabling provision and he is not bound to conduct an enquiry in all cases. The learned Government Pleader submits that as the 1st respondent had enough material before him to form the belief that the documents were under-valued, he need not have conducted any enquiry before referring the documents to the Collector.

8. It must be noted that the foundation for exercise of jurisdiction under S. 47-A of the Act is that the registering officer should have 'reason to believe' that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument presented for registralion. He will then refer the matter to the Collector for determination of market value and proper duty payable. The crucial expression is 'reason to believe' -- which is a well known legal expression used to limit or subdue the otherwise vast and extensive power or discretion confided to a statutory authority. It may perhaps be relevant to refer to a few decisions of the Supreme Court which have considered the import of this expression.