The High Court · 2008

the High Court for its opinion, and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner, who filed the writ petition as party-in-person submitted that the Government allotted land to the Society for providing house sites to its members at the rate of Rs.200/- per acre. He being a member of the Society, was allotted the land in question at the rate of Rs.126/- Sq.yd., and the value of the land set forth in the document, namely Rs. 99,500/-, is the price at which the Society, transferred the land to the petitioner under the sale deed, which includes the cost of the land as also development charges, and therefore, he is liable to pay stamp duty only on the amount so reflected in the document, but not on the prevailing market value of the land, and the authorities below have committed an error in holding that the value of the land is not true set forth in the document and that the prevailing value is more than what has been reflected in the document. He submitted that he had purchased the land at the price fixed by the Society, and there can be no reason for him to undervalue the land in the document, which in fact, has been executed by the Society in his favour. According to him, the object and purport of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is to neutralize the under valuation, and he having not undervalued the land, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, cannot be made applicable to him. In support of these arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in K. Sivaramaiah v. Special Deputy Collector , L.R. Venkateswaran v. Govt. of A.P. , Swamy [1] [2] Talkies v. Sub-Registrar of Assurances [3] and M. Venkata Ramana v. Collector & District Registrar [4] . He submitted that the remedy of appeal provided under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act before the civil/law courts, is by reason of a State Amendment, and considering the fact that he moved respondent No.1 under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, respondent No.1, in exercise of his power under Section 57(1)(a) of the Stamp Act, which is a Central Act, ought to have referred the matter with his opinion to the High Court for its opinion, and he committed an error in dismissing his request as not maintainable and directing him to avail the remedy of appeal before appropriate court against the orders of respondent No.2. He submitted that, in fact, he has not preferred any appeal before respondent No.2, but both in the orders of respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1, it has been erroneously referred to as if he has preferred appeal. He submitted that respondent No.1 under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, had a corresponding obligation to refer the matter referred to him under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, with his opinion to the High Court for its opinion, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Banarasi Dass v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi [5] , and submitted that though he brought this judgment to the notice of respondent No.1, he failed to look into the same. In support of his various other contentions, he relied on the decisions in Surajmull v. Triton Insurance Co. , C.C. Revenue Authority v. M.S. Mills [6] [7] , I.T. Officer, Calcutta v. Lakhmani , R. Dharma Rao & Ors. v. The [8] Joint Sub Registrar, Warangal , Trideshwar Dayal v. Maheshwar [9] [10] Dayal and Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority [11] . Respondent No.1 filed detailed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 reiterating the counter averments submitted that as against the order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the petitioner has to approach the appellate authority, i.e. the competent civil Court, but the petitioner instead of moving the competent civil Court has preferred revision before respondent No.1, which is not maintainable, and the same was rightly dismissed. He submitted that since there is no substantial question of law involved, the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Banarasi Dass v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, on which the petitioner placed reliance in support of his contention that respondent No.1 had a corresponding obligation to refer the matter with his opinion to the High Court, cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Having heard the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, and having regard to the pleadings, as recorded above, the only question that arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether respondent No.1 had a corresponding obligation to refer the matter under Section 57(1) of the Stamp Act with his opinion to the High Court for its opinion, as requested by the petitioner? The case of the petitioner is that the value of the land, as set forth by him in the sale deed, is the true value of the land at which the Society allotted the plot, which includes the cost of the land as also the development charges, and he having not undervalued the land, and the value of the land as reflected by him in the sale deed, being the true value of the land, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, which seek to neutralize the under valuation, are not applicable to his case, and his case falls under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. Though the petitioner, before respondent No.1, among others, raised the aforementioned ground specifically stating that under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, respondent No.1, being the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has full power to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2, if he finds the same to be erroneous, as held by the apex Court in Trideshwar Dayal v. Maheshwar Dayal, the fact remains, respondent No.1 has not considered the said contention. Respondent No.1, in the impugned order, even though referred to the judgment of the apex Court in Banarasi Dass Ahluwalia v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, on which the petitioner placed heavy reliance, he has neither appreciated the facts of the case nor considered the effect and applicability of the said judgment to the facts of the case and the contentions raised by the petitioner, and without application of his mind to the facts of the case, has passed the impugned order mechanically, holding that there is a remedy of appeal provided to the petitioner as against the order of respondent No.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are not applicable to his case as he has not undervalued the land, and the value of the land mentioned in the sale deed, is the true value of the land, while that of the respondents is that the petitioner has not truly set forth the value of the land in the document, and that the value of the land reflected in the document is less than the prevailing market value, and considering the stand taken by the petitioner that the request made by him before respondent No.1 is one under Section 56(2) of the Stamp Act, and as such, respondent No.1 under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, as held by the apex Court in Banarasi Dass Ahluwalia v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, had a corresponding obligation to refer the matter along with his opinion to the High Court, for its opinion, I am of the considered opinion that question raised by the petitioner, with regard to non- applicability of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, to his case, being a substantial question, the result on which would have a bearing on the collection of stamp duty, on the basis of the value reflected in the document, the petitioner contending that it is truly reflected while the respondents contending that it has been under valued, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.1, ought to have considered the request of the petitioner in right perspective, which he failed to do so, and this is evident from a reading of the impugned order, which would disclose that that respondent No.1 except narrating the stand taken by the petitioner, has not examined the same contentions raised by the petitioner properly, and as to why he is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner to refer the matter along with his opinion to the High Court, for its opinion. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, cannot be sustained, and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2007, passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above. No costs. Dated: 17th December, 2008. KSR _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 1989 (1) ALT 546 1990 (2) ALT 110 1997 (1) An.W.R. 616 1998 (4) ALT 626 AIR 1968 SC 497 1925 Privy Council 83 AIR 1950 SC 218 AIR 1976 SC 1753 1987 (2) LS 282 [10] [11] AIR 1990 SC 485 (1996) 4 SCC 657