Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.50 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988
(i) For comparable instance of sale what is required is there
must be a willing buyer but not too anxious a buyer ( in
16
other words, a buyer who makes a calculated assessment
of future prospects of the property); Transactions are
bonafide; Lands are similar with similar advantages and
potentialities; sales are at or about the time of preliminary
notification. [Administrator General of West Bengal vs.
Collector, Varanasi (supra); Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (supra)].
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
8. It is important to note that in the instant case no conflicting
sale deeds are relied upon by the HMDA before the reference Court
and in these appeals to show that the market value is indeed lower
than the claimants have urged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chimanlal Hargovind Das (supra) held that award of Land
Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as judgment. It is merely an
18
offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by
him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the reference Court
unless produced and proved before it. No documents are marked on
behalf of HMDA to show that the market value of claimants' properties
is far less. It has only marked the award. On the other hand, the
claimants marked certain sale deeds in comparable lands to justify his
claim for enhancement, accepted by the reference Courts. Where the
claimants produce sale deeds in comparable land, showing the market
value as much higher, then the Court must infer and grant higher
compensation in the absence of contrary evidence.
Periyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 1990
It was
reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195]. Therefore, it is
settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to
take into account either one or the other three methods to determine
market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to
determine the market value. Generally the second method of
valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is
whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to
determine the market value. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides
the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments, etc. Entry 44
of List III, Concurrent List, of the VIIth Schedule read with Article
254 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to amend
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In exercise thereof all the State
Legislatures including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and
enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy
stamp duty on instruments of conveyance, etc., if the registering
officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property,
covered by the conveyance, exchange, gift, release of right or
settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may
refuse registering such instrument and refer the same to the
Collector for determination of the market value of such property
and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of such opinion,
he may call upon the vendor as per the rules prescribed, to pay
the additional duty thereon. If the vendor is dissatisfied, he has
been given the right to file an appeal and further getting reference
made to the High Court for decision in that behalf. Section 47-A
would thus clearly show that the exercise of the power thereunder
is with reference to a particular land covered by the instrument
brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it to be
undervalued, he should get verified whether the market value was
truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty;
the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis
of the prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express
power to the Government to determine the market value of the
lands prevailing in a particular area, village, block, district or the
region and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp
duty for registration of an instrument, etc. No other statutory
provision or rule having statutory force has been brought to our
notice in support thereof.
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 ALT 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
11
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.
Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar [(1992) 1 ALT 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.