1976 (5) TMI 9 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the petitioner for registration as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Qualification of the petitioner for appointment as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act.
3. Allegations of discrimination in the registration and appointment process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification of the Petitioner for Registration as a Valuer of Immovable Property under the Wealth-tax Act:
The petitioner argued that he was fully qualified to be registered as an approved valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications. The relevant provisions are found in section 34AB(1) of the Wealth-tax Act and Rule 8A(2), which stipulates that a valuer must either be a graduate in civil engineering, architecture, or town planning from a recognized university or hold a qualification recognized by the Union Public Service Commission as equivalent to a degree in civil engineering or architecture.

The petitioner claimed that his qualifications, including a diploma and membership in the Civil Engineering Division of the Institution of Engineers (India), were recognized as equivalent to a degree in civil engineering. The court noted that the Union Public Service Commission had recognized the Membership of the Civil Division of the Institution of Engineers (India) as equivalent to a degree in civil engineering. This recognition was affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in a similar case, and the court here agreed with that view. Therefore, the petitioner possessed the necessary qualifications for registration as a valuer under the Wealth-tax Act, and the refusal to register him was not justified.

2. Qualification of the Petitioner for Appointment as a Valuer of Immovable Property under the Estate Duty Act:
The petitioner's claim for appointment as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act was examined under section 4(3) of the Act. The court clarified that no person has a right to be appointed as a valuer under this provision, as the number of valuers to be appointed is at the discretion of the Central Government based on necessity.

The court reviewed the notifications governing the qualifications for valuers. Initially, a notification dated 6th July 1968 included all types of immovable property under one category, which could be valued by engineers, surveyors, or architects. The petitioner, with a degree in electrical engineering, was thus qualified under this notification. However, a subsequent notification dated 1st August 1975 created separate categories for machinery and plant and for immovable property, requiring a graduate degree in civil engineering for the latter. The petitioner, holding a degree in electrical engineering, did not meet this new requirement. The court concluded that the petitioner could not be appointed as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act.

3. Allegations of Discrimination in the Registration and Appointment Process:
The petitioner alleged discrimination, citing the case of one Sri R. D. Agarwal, who was registered as a valuer for both plant and machinery and immovable property. The respondents denied this claim, and it was unclear whether Sri R. D. Agarwal held a degree in civil engineering. The court found no evidence of discrimination in the registration and appointment process.

Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The court directed the respondent to register the petitioner as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act. However, the petitioner's claim for appointment as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act was rejected. There was no order as to costs due to the partial success of the parties.