Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) Whether the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in C.M.A.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2012 setting aside the orders of the 1st petitioner warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ?

Point (a) :

23. To the extent relevant for our purpose, Section 47-A states :

"47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc., under-valued how to be dealt with:

(1) Where the registering officer appointed under the Registration act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908), while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement, ::9:: MSR,J crp_3373_2016&batch release, agreement relating to construction, development or sale of any immovable property or power of attorney given for sale, development of immovable property, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument, and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon :

"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 or fetter the discretion of the authorities concerned to (2004) 2 SCC 9 ::13:: MSR,J crp_3373_2016&batch satisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the value expressed in the documents."

33. In Smt.Kailash Rani (1 supra), the Allahabad High Court held:

"14. It is evident that two fold statutory obligation has been laid upon Collector. First of all it has to find out, whether the value set forth in the instrument by the parties is not a true market value and thereafter it has to proceed by application of its own mind following the procedure laid down in 1997 Rules to determine as to what is the true market value of property which is the subject matter of the instrument in question. The onus lies upon the Collector to determine the true market value and he cannot rely on the default or failure on the part of parties to lead evidence in his favour.

44. The Madras High Court in Collector of Nilgiris vs. Mahaveer Plantations Ltd11 had held that Market Value Guidelines are intended merely to assist the sub-Registrars to find out prima facie whether the market value set forth in the instruments had been set forth correctly and they are not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the enquiry 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. It held that 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. It held that A.I.R. 1982 Madras 138 ::22:: MSR,J crp_3373_2016&batch the very idea of an enquiry contemplated by Section 47-A and the detailed procedure prescribed in the Rules is that the Collector's findings must be verifiable evidence.