Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 23 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Mohabir Singh Etc. Etc on 21 November, 1995
In State of Punjab v. Mohabir Singh. etc. etc., AIR 1996 SC 2994, the guidelines issued by the State Government prescribing minimum prices are held to be inconsistent with Section 47-A. The State Government has been directed to revise the guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with law. The Apex Court has held that:--
Chamkaur Singh And Another vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 18 May, 1990
In Chamkaur Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1991 Punjab & Haryana 26, a Division Bench said that the guidelines issued under Section 47-A laying down minimum price of land are violative of Section 47-A; such guidelines are not permissible.
Ponnavolu Sasidar vs Sub-Registrar Hayatnagar, And Others on 9 October, 1991
Question has to be dealt with by the authority under Section 47-A. In Ponnavolu Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar, AIR 1992 AP 198 it is held that basic valuation of register does not have the statutory sanction. An enquiry has to be made independently.
Jawajee Naganatham, Etc. vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Abilabad ... on 29 October, 1982
"6. The finding of the Court that the concession that the market value determined by the Collector on the basis of basic valuation would be properly applied, is obviously illegal, Shri Gopal Subramaniam contended that the Govt. of U.P. had issued three different circulars accepting the position that the basic valuation would form basis for determination of the compensation under Section 23(1) and that, therefore, the High Court was right in accepting the valuation made by the Collector and in directing to pay the compensation -- on that basis. After the judgment in Nagnathans case (1994 AIR SCW 2852) (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Shau Singh (1995 1 HVD 191 held that the rates fixed for the collection of stamp duty cannot be relied upon to determine market value. Therefore, the instructions issued by the Government for determination of the market value on the basis of basic valuation register were held illegal. The Collector, therefore, was obviously wrong in determining the compensation under Section 23(1) on the basis of prevailing rates in 1992 as per basic valuation circulars."
Collector Of Nilgiris At Ootacamund vs Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. on 12 January, 1981
Similar is the view taken in Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund v. Mahavir Plantations Pte. Ltd., AIR 1982 Madras 138. Various factors have to be taken into consideration and the departmental guidelines cannot properly serve as the basis.
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Registration Act, 1908
Gourang Naik vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 26 April, 1991
In Gourang Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Orissa 232, it is held that guidelines issued by the State Government or Board of Revenue to registering authority for valuation of land are not the last word in the assessment of market value. Jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with Section 47-A to reach the satisfaction, the valuation of the property cannot be done in a mechanical manner on the basis of guidelines.