Writ Appeal No. 1232 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2022 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GANDHINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT No.4, DODDA BYRAPPA ROAD PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560 003 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT. OF REGISTRATION AND STAMP DUTY KSRTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD BENGALURU-560 027.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA) …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. VIVEK MARLA S/O KRISHNA MARLA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. CHETANA MARLA W/O VIVEK MARLA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT No.608 80 FEET ROAD, RMV II STAGE III BLOCK BENGALURU-560 094 …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 (BY SRI. SOHAN H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.271/2013 (GM-ST/RN) DATED 08.03.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed as against the judgment dated 08.03.2022 in WP No.271/2013. The proceedings at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 Annexure-H issued by the first respondent under Section 45-A(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') were set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the procedure prescribed by the Rules for collecting the estimated stamp value and registration charges on the correct valuation of the land had not been followed. 3. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 3-A and 5 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 (for short 'Rules 1977') provides for communicating the estimated market value and the stamp duty which ought to have been paid on the instrument is to be communicated by the registering authority to the parties. It is submitted that the said procedure had not been followed in the instant case. 4. The learned Single Judge also found, on facts, that the extent of the plot in question was only 4,520 square feet and Annexure-H order which states that there was a residential house constructed in the property having - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 two floors with an area of 12,500 square feet each, on each of the floors would clearly show the complete want of application of mind and that as such, on facts also, the order was completely vitiated. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the value of the land which was shown in the document was clearly insufficient since the land was sold in the year 1998. It is submitted that the land value in the area in question at the relevant time was at least Rs.3,000 per square feet and that the sale executed for a paltry amount clearly amounted to under valuation. It is submitted that even if the wrong mentioning of the area of the building in Annexure-H is disregarded totally, the writ petitioner would have to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the actual land value. It is therefore contended that even if the appeal is not entertained, liberty may be left to the State to take appropriate action as against the undervaluation, in accordance with law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge has considered the factual as well as the legal contentions and had found that the provisions of Section 45-A of the Stamp Act as well as the Rule 3-A and Rule 5 of the 1977 rules have not been followed by the authorities in question. Learned Single Judge has specifically found that the Registering Authority had proceeded to register the instrument, without keeping it pending even though he was proposing to make a reference for under valuation. Thereafter also, though Rule 3-A of 1977 rules makes it a mandatory for the registering authority, while making a reference, to communicate to the parties in Form 1-A, the estimated market value arrived at by him, no such communication was made in the instant case. Further, on the basis of the table as provided under Annexure-H, the learned Single Judge found that the site dimension was only 4,520 square feet and that the finding that there was a 2 storied building having an area of 12,500 square feet - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 on each floor reveals a complete want of application of mind. It is further contended that impounding and reference for undervaluation can be done only within the prescribed time limit and that the power having been exercised incorrectly, permission cannot be granted for further action since the law would not permit such exercise. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned Single Judge had also found that the sale was executed in the year 1998 and the sanctioned plan for construction on the site was obtained only thereafter, on 30.06.1998. It was also found that it was on the basis of the inspection conducted in the year 2002 that the estimated value of the property had been arrived at which is also purely perverse. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the contentions of the appellants have been considered by the learned Single Judge and that the findings on fact and law by the learned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB WA No. 1232 of 2022 Single Judge in the judgment under appeal require no
Decision
interference. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11