HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1360 of 2009 Between State of A.P. rep. by District Collector, Srikakulam and other. ….PETITIONERS AND Patnala Chandra Mouleeswararao and others. ……RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1360 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This revision is preferred against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in CMA.No. 10 of 2007 dated 30.09.2008, setting aside the order passed by the District Registrar-cum-Collector in proceedings No.963/2002/G5 dated 29.06.2007. The respondents herein sought registration of a vacant site, in Chinnabaratam street in Patha Srikakulam ward of Srikakulam Municipality covered by R.S.No. 182/71 part, T.S.No. 132/3 part measuring an extent of Ac.0.04 cents i.e. 193 1/3 sq. yards, on which stamp duty and registration charges were paid. In his spot inspection report, the Joint Sub-Registrar stated that the site could be used for residential purposes. As the site was in a commercially developed area, the market value was determined at Rs.1,400/- per sq. yard. The respondents were directed to pay deficit stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.26,550/-. Aggrieved thereby the respondents herein preferred CMA.No. 10 of 2002. The Learned Judge directed that the order passed by the District Registrar be treated as a provisional order and final orders be passed afresh. The District Registrar, in his order dated 29.06.2007, observed that the property was bounded by the respondents’ site on the eastern side, on the southern site by the site of Baratam Narayana Murthy, on the western side by the site of Nakka Krishna Veni and on the northern side by the site of Silla Vijayabhushana Gupta; the schedule site was located adjacent to the Chinnabaratam street which was at a distance of 100 yards from the site and was a prominent commercial area; and the property was situated in the middle of the town nearer to the G.T. Road, and to the old Bus stand and market. The District Registrar opined that the market value should be fixed at Rs.1,400/- sq. yard and, accordingly, the respondents herein were directed to pay stamp duty of Rs.29,795/- and registration fees of Rs.1,355/- and, after deducting the stamp duty already paid, the deficit stamp duty and registration fees were directed to be paid. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein preferred CMA.No. 10 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam who, in his order dated 30.09.2008, noted the fact that the respondents herein had got an Advocate Commissioner appointed to note down the physical features of the site; the report of the Advocate Commissioner disclosed that the property was situated at a distance of 200 feet from the main road leading to Chinnabaratam street; it was situated adjacent to the path way; the property under dispute was a vacant site; there were residential houses situated adjacent to the property; it was clear that the property was situated in a residential area and commercial activities were being carried on in the adjacent Chinnabaratam street; the documents of the year 2001 revealed that the sites were registered at Rs.537/- and Rs.800/- per sq. yard in the same locality; contemporary sale value had to be taken into consideration; and, even according to the registration authority, contemporary sale transactions were available and the stamp duty on such transactions must be held to be payable at Rs.537/- per sq. yard or Rs.800/- per sq. yard. The Learned Judge held that, as the sale transactions before him were of the year 2002, the market value should be taken at Rs.537/- per sq. yard. As to why the learned Judge chose to take the lower contemporary sale as the basis for determining market value of the property in question, even though another sale transaction of the year 2001 at Rs.800/- per sq. yard was available, is not clear from the order under revision. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 47-A and Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, the A.P. Stamps (Prevention of under-valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1975 were made and notified in G.O.Ms. No.1031, Revenue (U-2), dated 31st July, 1975. Rule 5 prescribes the principles of determination and, thereunder, the Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in determining the provisional market value or consideration namely:- (a) in case of lands – i. classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like; ii. classification under various Tarams and Bhagana in the Settlement Register of Accounts; iii. the rate of revenue assessment for each classification; and iv. other factors which may be relevant to the valuation of the land in question; v. points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person requiring special considerations; vi. value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity; vii. average yield from the land, its nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of the land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pumpsets; and viii. the nature of crops raised on the land. (b) In the case of house sites- i. the general value of house sites in the 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. land tax and valuation of sites with reference to taxation records of the local authorities concerned; vii. any other features having a special bearing on the valuation of the site; and viii. any special features of the case represented by the parties. These rules govern the method of valuation of property and ought to have been borne in mind both by the 2nd petitioner- original authority and the learned Senior Civil Judge who is the appellate authority under the Act. The principles of determination stipulated in Rule 5(a) is in respect of agricultural lands and 5(b) in respect of house sites. The 2nd petitioner herein ought to have followed the method of valuation prescribed in the Rules before holding that the property was under valued only to evade payment of stamp duty. While the learned Senior Civil Judge was justified in holding that the 2nd petitioner had not taken into account relevant parameters, it is evident that the learned Senior Civil Judge was also swayed by factors extraneous to those prescribed in Rules 5(a) and (b) of the Rules. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. This Court would interfere only where failure to do so would result in manifest injustice or the order suffers from a patent illegality. While the finding recorded by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, that the valuation mentioned in the registered sale deed by the respondent was correct, is without reference to the mode of valuation prescribed under the Rules, the fact remains that the 2nd petitioner herein has also not taken into consideration all the factors prescribed in Rules 5(a) and (b) of the Rules in determining the market value of the property. Inasmuch as the statutorily prescribed method of valuation has not been taken into consideration by either of the authorities below, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order under revision and remand the matter back for consideration afresh of the District Registrar who shall, in accordance with the rules aforementioned, pass orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:22.02.2010 usd