Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)V.N.Devadoss vs The Chief Revenue Control Officer on 27 November, 2006
In V.N.Devadosss case (supra) the Supreme Court
considered similar provisions occurring in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1967. In
the said case, the property sold by the Asset Sales Committee
(ASC) formed by the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (BIFR) and Appellate Authority for industrial and
Financial Reconstruction (AIFR) was involved. The property
belonging to a company, which became sick industry and was
declared so under the provisions of the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was put to auction.
When the sale deed was presented, the Sub Registrar referred the
matter to the District Revenue Officer, who initiated proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act resulting in issuance
of notice. He valued the property as per market value other than
the auction value. When an appeal was preferred, the appeal was
also dismissed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the
view taken by the authority, and when the matter was taken to
the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, after examining Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act held that Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act has no application because there is no scope for
entertaining a doubt that there was any undervaluation, and
accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and the
registering authorities were directed to register the documents at
the price disclosed in the document of conveyance.
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 27 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
M. Venkata Ramana vs Collector And District Register, ... on 23 March, 1998
The facts in M.Venkata Ramanas case (supra) are that the
petitioner, prior to his retirement from Government service,
applied for allotment of a resident plot of land for construction of
a house. The Government issued orders directing the Andhra
Pradesh Housing Board to sell him a plot measuring 233.33
square yards at Santoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad, at the rate of
Rs.600/- per square yard. He challenged the fixation of price in
a Writ Petition, which was disposed of on 10.06.1991. This Court
opined that the price fixed at Rs.600/- per square yard was
arbitrary and directed the respondents to re-fix the market value
in the light of basic value fixed by the Department of Registration
for similar lands in the locality. The said order was modified by a
further order by directing the respondent to fix the price
prevailing as on 19.02.1987. Accordingly, the Housing Board re-
fixed the market value of the land at Rs.400/- per square yard.
The same was also challenged by the petitioner in another Writ
Petition, and in the meantime, the Government issued a notice on
03.08.1993 threatening cancellation of allotment in favour of the
petitioner. He challenged the notice of cancellation in yet another
Writ Petition. Both the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a
common order dated 06.02.1997 wherein the notice of
cancellation was set aside and the petitioner was asked to pay the
cost of plot @ Rs.400/- per square yard as fixed by the Housing
Board, pursuant to the order of the High Court. The petitioner
accordingly paid the amount, and when the document was
presented for registration, the Sub Registrar referred the
document to the Collector and District Registrar, Hyderabad, for
determination of market value. The Collector issued a notice
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the petitioner
submitted his explanation stating that the price of the land was
fixed by this Court and, accordingly, it was not open to any
authority to revise the value of the land. However, the Collector
fixed the value of the land at Rs.1,440/- per square yard and
demanded payment of stamp duty accordingly. In the light of the
above facts, this Court considered the effect of Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act.
Vidya Nagar Housing Co-Operative ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 24 February, 1995
A learned single Judge of this Court, by
relying on Vidya Nagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v.
State of A.P following the ratio laid down therein, held that
before referring the matter to the Collector for determination of
market value, the registering authority must have reason to
believe that the consideration amount reflected in the instrument
was not truly set forth in the instrument.
1