Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 805 (MP)

Abhay Dare v. State of M. P.

2013-07-15

K.K.Lahoti, Subhash Kakade

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioners have sought following reliefs :- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent/State to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act/Rules made thereunder for determination of guidelines, in the interest of justice; (b) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash the guidelines for year 2013-14 issued vide order dated 30.3.13 and may further be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare fresh guidelines for the year 2013-14 in accordance to the price inflation index issued by the Central Government; (c) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to summon the petitioners before the Sub District Committee for the purpose of proposing the guidelines of District Sagar to District Committee or Central Committee thereafter; (d) Grant the cost of instant lis in favour of petitioner; (e) Any other writ/writ(s),direction/direction(s), order/order(s) and relief/relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper be issued in the facts and circumstances of instant writ petition.” 2. This Court has already referred the similar matters of Jabalpur to the IG (Stamps) while considering the guidelines issued by the Collector, Jabalpur for fixing market value for the purpose of registration of documents. In Writ Petitions No. 9226/13 and 8459/13, on 24.6.13, we directed thus :- “Considering the controversy involved in this case and in W. P. No.8459/2013, both the matters are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W. P. No.9226/2013. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W. P. No.8459/2013. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for registration of a property within the municipal limits of District-Jabalpur exorbitant price of the properties has been fixed, which are more than three times of the guidelines fixed in the last year. It is submitted that in other districts of the State, the price has been enhanced up to 10% - 20%, while in Jabalpur it has been enhanced up to 300%, which is beyond the factual position. It is submitted that in other districts of the State, the price has been enhanced up to 10% - 20%, while in Jabalpur it has been enhanced up to 300%, which is beyond the factual position. It is submitted that till date the respondent has not filed reply in the matter, so in case the respondent prays for time to file reply the respondent may be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (herein after referred to as the Rules). Shri Tiwari, counsel for the State prays for further two weeks time to file reply. From the perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules it appears that there is a special provision for revision, which reads thus :- “9. Powers of special revision- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained these rules, the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps may order of a special revision of Market Value Guidelines in any specified area under the following circumstances leading to a sudden appreciation of land values :- (a) setting up of an industry or group or industries or infrastructure projects. (b) development of large scale housing projects, (c) any other special circumstances having an impact on the values of immovable property in any specified area. (2) The cases which are covered under sub-rule (1), the committee constituted under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 shall take up the revision of Market Value Guideline within the time limit stipulated by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamp. (3) Such revised value shall be implemented on a date to be fixed by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamp.” From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has been vested with the powers for revision of Market Value Guidelines in any specified area with certain conditions. The petitioner before filing of this petition has not approached and raised his grievance before the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of both the petitions with the following directions:- “(i) The petitioner may file representation before the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps under Rule 9 of the Rules for revision of the Market Value Guidelines fixed by Respondent No. 3 and 4 for District Jabalpur. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of both the petitions with the following directions:- “(i) The petitioner may file representation before the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps under Rule 9 of the Rules for revision of the Market Value Guidelines fixed by Respondent No. 3 and 4 for District Jabalpur. The aforesaid representation shall be filed by the petitioner supported by necessary documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from today. (ii) In case of filing of such representation, the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps shall consider and decide the representation expeditiously as far as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the aforesaid representation, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard. In the representation the petitioner shall be free to raise all the contentions permissible to the petitioner, which shall be considered by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps in accordance with law. (iii) It is made clear here that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps shall be free to decide the representation in accordance with Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules.” 3. As the controversy has already been decided in aforesaid order, we dispose of this matter with the same directions. The aforesaid directions shall be applicable in the case of present petitioners. No order as to costs.