Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Explanation:-The Guidelines Register supplied to the officers is intended merely to assist them to ascertain prima facie, whether the market value has been truly set forth in the instruments. The entries made therein regarding the value of properties cannot be a substitute for market price. Such entries will not foreclose the enquiry of the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act of fetter the discretion of the authorities concerned to satisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the value expressed in the documents]

15.On the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that after the petitioner has purchased the property in the auction brought out by the mortgagee, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner denoting the sale consideration of the property as Rs.45 lakhs for which the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner being the purchaser and when the document was presented the third respondent, registering authority has referred for valuation to the Collector under Section 47-A (1) of the Act having entertained a doubt as to whether the value of the property has been correctly set out by the petitioner in the document. It is significant to note that under section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act while the registering authority to entertains a doubt about the valuation on the belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and it is not the purchase value or sale consideration reference is made. The term 'market value' is certainly not a static concept but it is a changing event based on various circumstances. That is the reason why, Rule 3 of the above said Rules enable the registering officer to refer to guideline register for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that the market value of the property has not been properly and truly set fourth in the instrument.

16.The word truly set fourth no doubt contemplates a suspicion of the conduct of the purchaser in denoting the value of the property subject matter of the instrument sought to be registered. If the sale has been effected either at the supervision of the Court as it happens in the Company Court or a sale effected by the governmental authorities for the value fixed by such authorities like the housing board selling plots to the individuals, there is no question of the registering authority to entertain a doubt as to whether the market value has been truly set forth or not.

17.But in cases of private sales which includes a sale effected under Section 69 of the Transfer of the Property Act which can never be said to be either a sale effected by the public authority or at the supervision of the Court since it is only a private sale effected by exercising the powers conferred under the Act and therefore, it cannot be concluded prima facie that simply because many public can participate in such a private sale, it has to be taken that in all those cases, the consideration should be treated as a market value as truly set forth for the purpose of payment stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, it is immaterial in a private sale conducted under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act as to whether the mortgagor who is a original debtor has objected to such value or not. In fact such sales are effected only after sufficient notice to repay to the mortgagor by the mortgagee for payment of the amount and it is only in default such sales are brought out under Section 69 of the Act. There is scope for the mortgagor to work out his remedy to set aside the sale in the manner known to law for which one of the reasons may be gross under valuation which is detrimental to the interest of the mortgagor. But the non exercise of such power by the mortgagor, itself not ipso facto does not mean that the valuation given or sale consideration for which a purchase was effected by the purchaser should be treated as market value. On the facts of the present case, after entertaining a doubt about the market value as it has not been properly set out, the registering authority referred the matter to the Collector for an adjudication under Section 47-A(1) of the Act and admittedly, Form-I notice was given by the Collector in which the petitioner has participated and after the enquiry, the Collector arrived at the valuation and directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,83,517/-. It remains a fact that the Special Deputy Collector, Chennai has issued a notice in Form-I to the petitioner on 25.06.2002 who passed the final order and that order having become final since admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Appellate Authority) under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, certainly, it is not open to the petitioner having paid the amount and document released, to file the present writ petition for the recovery of the amount of stamp duty already paid. The definition of market Value as given in Blacks Law Dictionary relied upon by Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner on the present factual scenario. The term market value as defined in the dictionary is as follows: