Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.45 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sagar Cements Limited vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 7 February, 2003
Whether an instrument is liable
for higher stamp duty on the basis of valuation maintained in
the Basic Valuation Register, came up for consideration
in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A.P. [(1989) 3 Andh LT
677] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., as he then was, considered the
question and held that the Government has unilaterally fixed
the valuation of the lands, the Basic Valuation Register had
no statutory foundation and therefore it does not bind the
parties. Neither the Registrar nor the vendor is bound by it.
The market value of the land for proper stamp duty has to be
determined as per the law under Section 47-A itself.
Ponnavolu Sasidar vs Sub-Registrar Hayatnagar, And Others on 9 October, 1991
That
view was followed by another learned Single Judge in P.
9
Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar [(1992) 1 Andh LT 49]. It is,
therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation Register prepared
and maintained 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. Equally it would not be a
basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the
Act, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality
or the taluk etc. 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
market value.
Vasireddi Bharata Rao And Anr. vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 March, 1992
The entire controversy was
considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi
Bharata Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(1992) 1 Andh LT
591]. The Division Bench, after considering the case law
disagreeing with Sohan Lal [(1988) 2 Andh LT 306] view as
per incuriam, also reiterated that the Basic Valuation
Register maintained by the registering authority has no
statutory foundation to determine the market value and
cannot form the base under Section 23(1) to determine the
market value.
Gulzara Singh And Ors., Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 May, 1993
This Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1993) 4 SCC 245] held that mutation entries of the
land transactions in the revenue records are not evidence
unless the parties to the transactions have been examined in
proof of documents.
Shalini Vaman Godbole vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22 June, 2009
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court relying upon the Ready Reckoner
land prices of the area has enhanced the amount of compensation by
800% from Rs.21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. The High Court has
heavily relied upon the Government Resolution dated 31.10.1994 as well
as the Ready Reckoner prices and the decision of the High Court in the
case of Shalini Vaman Godbole (supra).