Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 870 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Suresh Khandelwal

2010-08-27

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2010
ORDER 1. With consent, heard finally. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 7130 of 2006, the appellants have filed this intra-Court appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko appeal) Adhiniyam. 2005. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the respondent purchased a plot situated at 8, Siyaganj. Indore admeasuring 457.42 sq. ft. along with the Tin Shed house built upon the same. He presented the sale deed of the said property for its registration before the Sub-Registrar, Indore on 15.1.2002. The sale consideration shown in the said sale deed was Rs. 5,25,000/-. 4. The said property being situated in a prime commercial location, the Sub Registrar, prima facie was of the view that the market value of the property has not been set forth in the sale deed. He, therefore, conducted a spot inspection and made assessment of the value of the property to the extent of Rs. 24,81.200/-. 5. The Sub-Registrar, thereafter referred the instrument to the Collector of Stamps, Indore invoking his powers under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On receipt of the reference the Collector issued notice to the respondent and determined the market value of the property to be Rs. 24.81.200/-. 6. The said order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Indore was challenged by the respondent in an appeal under section 47 A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Commissioner, Indore Division. The Commissioner vide order dated 16.7.2003 dismissed the respondent's appeal. The said order was further challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 55-1/04. The learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.1.2006 set aside the order passed by the Collector, Stamps, Indore as also the order passed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved the State had filed a Writ Petition No. 7130 of 2006 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 2.1.2007 dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved the appellant/State has filed this writ appeal. 7. Aggrieved the State had filed a Writ Petition No. 7130 of 2006 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 2.1.2007 dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved the appellant/State has filed this writ appeal. 7. It has been argued by Shri L.N. Soni, learned Additional Advocate General that while invoking the powers under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act the Sub Registrar has rightly referred the matter to the Collector Stamps, Indore who in turn, after following due procedure of law has passed the order determined the market value of the respondent's property to be Rs. 24,81,200/- which order was rightly affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal. 8. He further argued that the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge have committed error in holding that the orders passed by the Collector Stamps and Commissioner cannot be sustained in view of the fact that once the sale deed has been registered by the Sub-Registrar, then the value could not be enhanced. He pointed out that the Sub-Registrar, at the stage of and during the course of Registration, had noticed that the market value of the property in question has not been truly set forth and, therfore, he in exercise of his powers under section 47 A of the Indian Stamps Act referred the sale deed to the Collector Stamps, after getting the market value assessed by conducting spot inspection. Thus, according to him, there was no illegality in the order passed by the Sub-Registrar, the Collector Stamps and the Commissioner, Indore Division. 9. Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contained in section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in affirming the order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the orders passed by the Collector Stamps and Commissioner, Indore. 11. The Sub-Registrar on being prima facie satisfied that the market value of sale-deed produced before him for registration does not reflect true market value, conducted the spot inspection and after assessment of the market value referred the instrument to the Collector. 11. The Sub-Registrar on being prima facie satisfied that the market value of sale-deed produced before him for registration does not reflect true market value, conducted the spot inspection and after assessment of the market value referred the instrument to the Collector. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion no fault can be found in the action of Sub-Registrar. On the other hand, the action of the Sub-Registrar is inconsonance with the provisions of section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. 12. However, it has not been disputed before us that on receipt of the reference before passing the order, the Collector of Stamps did not serve upon the respondent a show-cause notice and passed ex parte order after lapse of one year without affording opportunity to the respondent to rebut the market value assessed by the Sub-Registrar. 13. In the circumstances, we set aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and by the learned Single Judge, as also the orders passed by the Collector Stamps and the Commissioner, Indore Division and remit the matter to the Collector Stamps, Indore for taking fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent. 14. Let the matter be decided afresh by the Collector Stamps, Indore within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No orders as to costs.