Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 54 (RAJ)

Badan Singh v. Board of Revenue

1992-01-15

K.BHATNAGAR, R.P.SAXENA

body1992
JUDGMENT 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 6.5.1986 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer order dated 22.10.1985 passed by the Collector (Stamps) Rajsamand (Annex. 3) 2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 18.6.1982 the petitioner No. 1 Badansingh sold the agricultural land comprising of Khasra No. 484 measuring 0.4100 acres situated in village Chatapur in favour of the petitioner No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- through the impugned sale-deed. The said sale-deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sardargarh who registered the same on 7.8.1992 and returned the same to the party concerned. 3. It appears that at time in the year 1984 the Assistant Inspector General (Stamps & Registration) inspect the office of the Sub-Registrar and found that impugned sale-deed was undervalued. The Sub-Registrar in compliance of the inspection to reference under Section 47(1) to the Collector (Stamps) Rajsamand for determination of the market value of the property incorporated in the impugned instrument. The Collector (Stamps) issued notice to the petitioner, who despite service did not prefer to file any reply and absented themselves. The Collector did not conduct any enquiry and relying on basic document bearing registration No. 99/82 enhance the value of the property so transferred and by his order Annex. 3 directed that an amount of Rs. 3,712.50 as deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty amount Rs. 3,712.50 along with Rs. 25.50 as deficit registration charges i.e. total amount of Rs. 4,109.00 be realised from the petitioners. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 6.5.1986 Annex. 5 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Slate and carefully peruse the relevant record in extenso. 5. Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the moment of time the Sub-Registrar registered and returned the impugned sale-deed to the petitioners, he became functus officio and had no legal authority and competence to submit a reference under Section 4A(1) of the Stamp Act read with the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (in short the Stamp Act). Hence the reference was without jurisdiction and incompetence. Hence the reference was without jurisdiction and incompetence. He also submit that the Collector also did not conduct any enquiry as envisaged under Section 47(2) of the Stamp Act. According to him the learned Board of Revenue has committed an illegality in ignoring this material and legal aspect of the case, especially when he had not initiate a suo motu enquiry under Section 47(3) of the Stamp Act. 6. On the other hand Mr. U.C. Singhvi learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the Assistant Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) had sent his inspection note dated 17.5.1984 to the Sub-Registrar directing him to file a reference in the competent court and, as such, the reference was not incompetent. However he has conceded that the learned Collector did not conduct any enquiry in accordance with law. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. There is no dispute that the Sub-Registrar after registering the impugned sale-deed on 7.8.1982 has returned the same to the party concerned. Therefore, it stands well established that the Sub-Registrar while registering the impugned instrument had no reasons to believe that the market value of the property had not duly set forth in the sale-deed or that it was under valued. Admittedly, the Sub-Registrar submitted the reference under Section 47(1) of the Stamps Act in compliance of the inspection note of the Assistant Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) in the year 1984 without application of his mind. 8. Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 lays down that in cases where an unstamped or under stamped instrument is detected in course of inspection or otherwise by a public officer, a report thereof, shall be made forthwith to the Collector. It further provides that the Collector shall thereupon issue a notice to the executant or such other person who may be liable to pay the duly requiring him to produce the original instrument before him. Therefore, it was the duty of the Assistant Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) to have transmitted the matter to the Collector instead of directing the Sub-Registrar to file a reference. Therefore, it was the duty of the Assistant Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) to have transmitted the matter to the Collector instead of directing the Sub-Registrar to file a reference. As a matter of fact the Sub-Registrar had already become functus officio, the moment of time he registered and returned the impugned instrument to the party concerned, and, as such he had no authority or legal competence to submit the reference under Section 47(1) of the Stamp Act to the Collector, therefore, the reference was incompetent and without jurisdiction. 9. Apart from it in Kelcute Discount Company v. Income Tax Commissioner, A.I.R. 1961, S.C. 372 and B. Narainappa v. Commissioner, Income Tax, AIR 1967 SC 523 their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while interpreting the expression reasons to believe have held that there should be relevant information before the authority from which inference could be drawn that vague feeling is not sufficient and that it is not permissible to act mechanically. In the instant case, the Sub-Registrar did not apply his mind objectively but mechanically complying with the directions of the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) submitted the reference to the Collector, which was neither proper nor legal nor valid. In view of this the reference submitted by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector was clearly incompetent and the Collector had no authority to act thereupon. 10. In this case admittedly the Collector did not suo motu initiated proceedings under Section 47(3) of the Stamp Act. He also neither called and sent for the original sale-deed from the petitioners. Therefore, this case does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 47(3) of the Stamp Act. 11. It is pertinent to mention that the burden to prove that the property transferred through a sale-deed or any instrument chargeable with advolorem duty is undervalued squarely lies of the State, who is required to discharge this burden by advancing cogentical and clear convincing evidence. In the slant case no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Suite. Even the copy of the basic document was not got proved as per provisions of the Evidence Act. In such circumstances there was not a fringe of evidence to establish that the impugned instrument was under value. Therefore, it is abundently apparent that the Collector has arbitrarily enhanced the market value of the property. Even the copy of the basic document was not got proved as per provisions of the Evidence Act. In such circumstances there was not a fringe of evidence to establish that the impugned instrument was under value. Therefore, it is abundently apparent that the Collector has arbitrarily enhanced the market value of the property. In application, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has also ignored the specific provisions of Section 47 of the Stamps Act as well as the factual aspect and committed an illegality to enhance the market value of the land, hence the impugned orders Annex. 3 and 5 cannot be sustained. 12. In the premise of the above discussions, we accept this writ petition and set aside the order dated 28.10.1985 (Annex. 3) passed by the Collector (Stamps) as well as the order dated 6.5.1986 (Annex. 5) passed by the Board of Revenue. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******