1991 (10) TMI 322 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Non-registration of sale-deeds due to insufficient stamp duty.
2. Classification and valuation of land for stamp duty purposes.
3. Application and interpretation of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
4. Requirement for an enquiry under Rule 3(3) of the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975.
5. Validity of the basic value register as a guideline for valuation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-registration of sale-deeds due to insufficient stamp duty:

The petitioners challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register sale-deeds dated 1-8-1991, executed in their favor, citing insufficient stamp duty. The Sub-Registrar, acting on instructions, insisted on a valuation of Rs. 120 per square yard, treating the land as house sites, contrary to the sale price of Rs. 65,000 per acre stated in the documents.

2. Classification and valuation of land for stamp duty purposes:

The petitioners argued that the land, classified as dry land in revenue records and used for agricultural purposes, should not be valued as house sites. The land was far from residential areas and reserved for conservation use by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. The Sub-Registrar, however, relied on the basic value register, which listed the land as house sites with a value of Rs. 120 per square yard.

3. Application and interpretation of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act:

Section 47-A allows the registering officer to refer documents to the Collector if the market value appears under-stated. The petitioners contended that the Sub-Registrar did not exercise independent discretion and failed to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the land's true nature and value, as mandated by Section 47-A.

4. Requirement for an enquiry under Rule 3(3) of the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975:

The court emphasized that the Sub-Registrar must conduct an enquiry under Rule 3(3) to form a reasonable belief about the land's valuation before referring the matter to the Collector. The enquiry involves gathering information from parties and examining public records. The court rejected the Government Pleader's argument that such an enquiry is discretionary, stating it is mandatory to ensure a fair assessment of the land's value.

5. Validity of the basic value register as a guideline for valuation:

The court referred to the judgment in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A.P., where it was held that the basic value register, lacking statutory sanction, should not bind the registering officer. It can serve as a guideline but should not replace independent discretion. The Sub-Registrar's reliance solely on the basic value register without conducting an enquiry was deemed improper.

Conclusion:

The court declared the Sub-Registrar's action illegal and directed him to reconsider the valuation after conducting an enquiry under Rule 3(3). Only if, after such an enquiry, the Sub-Registrar reasonably believes the documents are undervalued, should he refer the matter to the Collector. The previous reference made by the Sub-Registrar was declared illegal, and the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. No costs were awarded, and an advocate's fee of Rs. 100 was set for each petition.