Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.60 seconds)R. Rajalakshmi And Ors. vs The Revenue Divisional Officer And Anr. on 15 April, 1988
(i) Contending that, in the absence of relevant sale deed not being available, determination of market value in respect of an agricultural land should be followed in terms of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, the decision reported in AIR 1989 Madras 96 (R.Rajalakshmi v. Revenue Divisional Officer) is relied upon:-
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007
11. On a reading of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules and the decisions of the Court as stated above, it is clear that the guideline value, which forms the main plank of the Department's contention in this case, is only a guiding factor to ascertain the market value prima facie, if there is a doubt that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. It has been clearly stated by the Apex Court that guideline value is not a final authority on the market value of the property. The Department will have to go by the various parameters set down in the Rules for determination of the market value if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In other words the data land which is sought to be compared in this case should contain details which will throw light as to how the data land, its nature, extent and value is comparable to that of the property which is subject matter of registration. The onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document tendered for registration. In the present case, the main plank of the Department appears to be the guideline value and that too it is of the year 2000. The date of presentation in both the cases is of the year 1998. Therefore, taking the guideline value of the year 2000 may not be justified, in view of the Apex Court's decision in State of Rajasthan & others v. - Khandaka Jain Jewellers reported in 2008(1) CTC 60,.
R. Sai Bharathi vs J. Jayalalitha & Ors on 24 November, 2003
Further, the Department has proceeded on the guideline value, which is not final as held by the apex Court in R.Sai Bharathi vs. - J.Jayalalitha and others (2003 (4) L.W. 825) cited supra. It is only a prima facie material for determination of the true market value.
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
1