Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1264 (PAT)

Radhika Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-02

NAVIN SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2001 by which the valuation of his lands purchased by him have been redetermined under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in its application to Bihar, requiring him to pay up the balance value of the undervalued instrument presented for registration. 3. The petitioner was gifted certain lands which was presented for registration. The document came to be impounded for reasons of under valuation. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Collector. The appeal preferred before the Commissioner also came to be rejected. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8324 of 1997. This Court allowed the writ application with a direction to the District Magistrate to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within two months. The impugned order has come to be issued thereafter. 4. The Respondents in support of the compliance with statutory provisions relied upon Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. From a bare perusal of the enquiry report appended to the counter affidavit, it is apparent on the face of it that there has been no statutory compliance of Rules 5 & 10 of the Bihar Instrument Valuation Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Moreover, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents also does not suggest any compliance with the statutory Rules. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, the Collector was required to obtain information from the concerned Registering Officer with regard to the figures of highest value of conveyance of the landed property in the area, which would be deemed to be the minimum value of the land and property. The enqury report is completely vague. There are no details of the contiguous lands whose conveyance deeds are sought to be referred to. It does not disclose the name of the person from whom inquiry was made. There has been no compliance of Rule 10 of the Rules inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner much less in the prescribed form, which was the mandate of this Court also in the earlier writ application. 6. In the entirety, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. There has been no compliance of Rule 10 of the Rules inasmuch as no notice was issued to the petitioner much less in the prescribed form, which was the mandate of this Court also in the earlier writ application. 6. In the entirety, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained. The impugned order dated 3.12.2001 is, accordingly, quashed. Since the document was presented for registration as far back as on 10.10.1995 and the Respondents have failed to comply the order of the Writ Court three years later, contrary to the directions to do. so within two months, this Court is not persuaded to remand the matter for fresh consideration, as was suggested on behalf of the Respondents. 7. Let the Respondents register the gift deed with the valuation in accordance with which it was presented before them on 10.10.1995. Let the same be done within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. This writ application is, thus, allowed.