State Of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.) v. 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 2195 of 2011 State Of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Rekha Agrawal, W/o Navalkishore Agrawal, R/o Sharda Complex, Telipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3. Smt. Neha Chhabda, W/o Kamal Kishore Chhabda, R/o Tarbahar, Dipupara, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Shri Sanjeet Kumar, S/o late Santosh Kumar, by Caste Isai & 3 others, R/o 937, Agrawal – Compound, Napier Town, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 01-09-2025 1) Petitioner/ State has filed this petition assailing the order passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 1/02/SA/b-105/96/2009 dated 19.11.2009 whereby appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed. 2) Facts of the present case are that a sale-deed was executed by 2 respondent No. 4 in favor of respondents No. 2 and 3 on 07.08.2005 pertaining to land out of Sheet No. 4, Plot No. 41 total ad-measuring 2,380 sq.ft. having a shop over an area of 337.5 sq.ft. and a build up house over an area of 1207.5 sq.ft., situated at Ward No. 7, Guru Ghasidas Nagar Ward, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District – Bilaspur. The market value of the land was declared to be Rs. 26,00,000/-. As per guidelines issued for the year 2008-09, Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur assessed the market value of subject property to be 49,27,500/- and referred the matter to Collector of Stamps for determination of market value of subject property. Collector of Stamps issued notice to respondents; they filed their reply and after spot inspection, Collector of Stamps after applying Rule 5 of Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975, assessed the market value of subject property to the tune of Rs. 44,15,400/-. Respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred appeal against the said order before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2009. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ State submits that Collector of Stamps assessed the market value of subject property strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975 and guidelines prevailing at the relevant time. She further submits that the valuation of an immovable property was determined by the Valuation Committee and approved by the Board after taking into account the use, locality and other factors affecting the valuation 3 of the property. She contends that a house and a shop were constructed over part of the property in question and before registration of the sale-deed, some part of the building was demolished. She further contends that Collector of Stamps rightly applied Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975 but this fact has not been considered by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue and vide order dated 19.11.2009, the Board reduced the market value of the building/shop to the extent of 75% on flimsy grounds. She prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that Collector of Stamps as well as Board of Revenue have been conferred with discretionary power to assess the valuation of a property. He further submits that shop and building constructed over the subject property were in dilapidated condition and immediately after registration of sale- deed, some part of building collapsed, therefore Municipal Corporation directed respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the debris from the road. He contends that Board of Revenue has exercised its discretion while reducing the market value of the building and shop from 50% to 25% looking to dilapidated state of the structure. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975 which deals with Principles for determination of market value reads as under :- 4 5. Principles for determination of market value. – The Collector shall as far as possible have also regard to the following points in arriving at the market value:- (a) In the case of land- various Classification under (i) Classification of the land as dry, or wet and the like; (ii) categories in the settlement register; (iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification; (iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question; (v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which require special consideration; (vi) Value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity; (vii) average yield from the land nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation in any form; viii) the nature of crops raised on the land. (b) In the case of house sites- (i) the general value of house sites in locality; (ii) nearness to roads, railway station, bus route; (iii) nearness to market, shops and the like; (iv) amenities available in the place like public offices, hospitals and educational institutions; (v) development activities, industrial improvements in the vicinity; (vi) local rates, municipal or other taxes to which such house site may be subject and valuation of site with reference to taxation records of the local authorities concerned; (vii) any special feature having a special bearing on the valuation or the site; and (viii) any special feature of the case 5 represented by parties. (c) In the case of buildings- (i) type and structure; (ii) locality in which constructed; (iii) plinth area; (iv) year of construction (v) kind of material used; (vi) rate of description; (vii) fluctuation in rates; (viii) any other features that have a bearing on the value; (ix) Local rates, municipal or other taxes to which such building may be subject and valuation of building with reference to taxation records of local authority concerned; (x) the purpose for which the building is being used and the income, if any, by way of rent per annum secured on the building; and (xi) any special feature of the case represented by the parties; (d) Properties other than lands, house sites and building- (i) the nature and condition of the property; (ii) purposes for which the property is being put to use; and (iii) any other special features having a bearing on the valuation of the property; In case of house sites, the authority concerned has to assess the general value of house sites in locality and also has to consider any special feature of the case represented by parties. In case of building, the authority concerned has to consider year of construction, any special feature of the case represented by the parties, etc. In case of properties other than lands, house sites and building, the authority concerned has to consider the nature 6 and condition of the property ; purpose for which the property is being put to use ; and any other special feature having a bearing on the valuation of the property. 7) In the present case, respondents No. 2 and 3 assessed the market value to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000/- in the instrument whereas Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur assessed it to the tune of Rs. 49,27,500/- and Collector of Stamps assessed it to the tune of Rs. 44,15,400/- on the basis of spot inspection. In the inspection, the authority concerned found that some part of building/ shop demolished and ignoring this fact, the authority concerned assessed the full market value according the guidelines prevailing at the relevant time. 8) Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue while exercising the power under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1975, also took into account that building and shop were in dilapidated condition, therefore it reduced the market value of subject property to 25%. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y aDigitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.02 16:53:44 +0530