'^.^^/Q^'tf- t-.A.]/ NPNNNI 111*N«1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: (Appellant) Respondent No.2 it Petition (Art. 227) No.284 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh, through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG). Sub- Versus 1. 2. Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). Smt.Kosam Bai, Wd/o Jaitram Suryawanshi, through Attorney Shrikant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.286 of2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- 2. Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). Baldau, S/o Laxman Suryawanshi, R/o Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.288 of 2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- 2. Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). Dukhiram Sahu, S/o Bhuwan Lal Sahu, R/o Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.289 of 2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- 1. Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential z^ sss^s^^-^^ss^g^a^^^jSia^-^^a^^^^^^^^'^^^ Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). (Respondent No.2) 2. Samelal, S/o Shri Ramji Gupta, R/o Sakri, Tahsii Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.290 of 2011 Petitjoner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Shrikant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli, Road, District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Smt.Kosambai, Wd/o Shri Jaitram, Through Attorney Smt.Rajmati, Wd/o late Durjan, R/o Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Wnt Petition (Art. 227) No.291 of 2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant 1. (Respondent No.2)- 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). B.N.Mishra, S/o Shri K.P.Mishra, through Attorney Shri Punnilal, S/o late Bhaiyalal, R/o Narmada Nagar Chowk, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.292 of 2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appellant (Respondent No.2) Sub- State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh,. through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o la^ Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). Smt.Kalindri Bai, W/o Damodar, R/o Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.301 of2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) Respondents: Appeilant 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, through Attorney Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, R/o Balaji Residential IL.I. r, ,-fS^f (Respondent No.2) Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Sachhidanand Mishra, S/o Shri Keshav Prasad Mishra, through Attorney Smt.Kosambai, Wd/o Jaitram, R/o Narmada Nagar Chowk, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.302 of 2011 Petitioner: (Respondent No.1) R^spondents: Appeilant (Respondent No.2) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Ramakant Singh, S/o late Suryabhan Singh, through . Attorney Smt.Ranjana Singh, W/o Shrikant Singh, R/o Balaji Residential Premises, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG). B.N.Mishra, S/o Shri K.P.Mishra, R/o Narmada Nagar Chowk, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) {Writ petitions underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of india} Present: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. Mr.Matin Siddique, counsel for respondent No.1 in all cases. None present for respondent No.2 in all cases. No representation is made Singie Bench: Hon'ble Mr.T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (11-10-2011) 1. Since W.P.(Art.227) Nos.284/2011, 286/2011, 288/2011, 289/2011, 290/2011, 291/2011, 292/2011, 301/2011 and 302/2011 involved the same question of law and facts and as such they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. By filing following writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of Jndia, the State of Chhattisgarh/petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in appeal under Section 47-A (4) ofthe Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'theAct') against the order passed by the Colleetor of Stamps, Bila'spur under Section 47-A (2) of the Act, whereby the Board of Revenue has quashed/modified the order passed by the Collector of Stamps: - 3. Common question for determination of aforesaid writ petitions is that "whether the Board of Revenue has committed illegality by quashing/ modifying the order passed by the Collector of Stamps?" 4. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are that the respondent seller has executed sale deed of his land in favour of the respondent purchaser, same was produced for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur and on examination under Section 47-A of the Act, the registering authority was ofthe view that the market value ofthe property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been Vd'.P. (Art. 227) No. Appeal Case No. {u/S 47A (4)} and Date of order passed by the BOR Ref. Case No. {u/S 47A (2)} and Date of.order passed by the Collector of Stamps Property situate at Nature of order passed byBOR (Quashed /Nlodified) 284/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 36/2010 Dt.19-3-2010 N0.49/B-105/2009- 10 Dt.26-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. -Bilaspur Quashed 286/2011 NQ.A/02/SA/B-105/ 35/2010 Dt. 19-3-2010 N0.35/B-105/2009- 10 Dt.26-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 288/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 34/2010 Dt. 19-3-2010 No.10/8-105/2009- 10 Dt.26-2-201.0 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 289/20,11 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 28/2010 Dt.6-3-2010 No.339/8- 105/2008-09 Dt. 15-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. Quashed 290/2011 No.A/02/SA/B-105/ 30/2010 Dt.6-3-2010 No.252/8- 105/2008-09 Dt. 15-2-2010 Vilt. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. QuasL/'j^i 291/2011 NO.A/02/S.A./B-105/ 26/2010 Dt.6-3-2010 No.163/8- 105/2008-09 Dt. 15-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur.. Bilaspur Quashed 292/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 37/2010 Dt. 19-3-2010 No.73/8-105/2009- 10 Dt.26-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. Quashed '•! 301/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 29/2010 Dt.9-4-2009 No.185/6- 105/2008-09 Dt.15-2-2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt, Bilaspur. Quashed 302/2011 NQ.A/02/SA/B-105? 27/2010 Dt.6-3-2010 N0.298/B- 105/2008-09 Dt. 15.2.2010 Vill. Sakri, Tah.Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. Quashed ^ truly set forth in the instrument. On the basis of prevailing guidelines for such valuation the Sub Registrar, Bilaspur referred the matter to the Collector of Stamps under sub-section (2) of Section 47A of the Act applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and after inspection of spot, passed the order and found that the parties have not properly stamped and not correctly valued the property for the purpose of registration. The Collector of Stamps directed for payment of additional stamp charges, same was chalienged by the respondent purchaser in appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 47-A (4) of the Act. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Board of Revenue quashed the order passed by the Collector of Stamps and affirn^ed the valuation made by the parties, especially on the basis of guidelines issued for valuation of the property. for the purpose of registration and stamps. 5. I have heard Mr.Sushil Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State and Mr.Matin Siddique, counsel for respondent No.1 in all cases, perused the orders impugned, copy of orders of the Collector of Stamps and copies of other documents. 6. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/petitioner vehemently argued that on the reference made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, the Collector of Sfamps has enquired into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, has arrived at a finding that the respondents have not properly valued the property subject matter instrument and has directed for proper vaiuation and payment of stamp charges. The Board of Revenue while exercising the appellate jurisdiction has without any ground for interi'erence reversed the reasoned and well-founded order of the Coliector of Stamps and thereby committed illegality. 7. Learned counsel further argued that the Board of Revenue has not assessed the market value of the land under Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp .Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rutes') and guideiines issued under Rule 4 of Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (in short 'Guidelines Ruies') and while modifying the order iTir 'iffa'iisssitss-' "*ss the Board of Revenue has overlooked the aforesaid legal provisions and thereby committed illegality. 8. Learned counsel contended that on the ground of non-providing any opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 the Board of Revenue was required to remit the case to the Collector of Stamps for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, but instead of remitting the case the Board of Revenue by itself has assessed the market value without considering the rules and guidelines appticable to it and thereby committed illegality. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the petitions and argued that the Collector of Stamps has not assessed the tand''.on the basis of Rule 5 of the Rules and has not followed the guidelines issued under the "Guidelines Rules" at the time of assessment of market value of the iand. The Collector of Stamps was under obiigation to examine the matter in the light of the facts circumstances, which effects the market value of the property. y lO.Learned counsel further argued that except in W.P.(Art.)No.290/2011 the Coilector of Stamps has not provided opportunity of hearing . to respondent No.1, therefore, n.o option except to assess market value by the Board of Revenue was left to the Board of Revenue. 11.Before 6-10-2003, Section 47-Aof the Act, as amended by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh by its Act No.8 of 1975 with effect from 15-5- 1975, and adapted under Section 79 of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, was in force and applicable. The Collector of Stamps was under obligation to enquire into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties pass order in accordance with sub-section (2^ Section 47-A of the Act on the basis of reference made to it under sub- section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act. The order passed by the Collector of Stamps under sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 47-A of the Act was appealable before the Commissioner under sub-section (4) and second appeal was maintainable before the Board of Revenue as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (5). After abolition of the post of Commissioner, sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act was omitted vide the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance No. 10/2003) with effect from 6-10-2003 and sub-section (5) was amended. Again the post of Commissioner was 7 created vide the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No.1 of 2008) published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 5-4-2008. After re-creation of the post of Commissioner, sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 47-A of the Act were amended vide the Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.25 of 2010) pubiished in the Gazette on 18-10-2010 and thereby the provisions as stood prior to 6-10-2003 have been restored. 12.in accordance with sub-section (1) ofSection 47-Aofthe Act, atthetime of registration of instrument the registering authority is competent to refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps, if he has reason to believe that the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such insirument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, then he may, before registering such instrument, refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps for determination of the market-value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector is required to hold an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and after providing opportunity of being heard, determine the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. 13.For the purpose of vaiuation of property for proper stamps and registration, the State of Chhattisgarh has made the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975. Rule 5 of the Rules provides principles for determination of market value. The Collector of Stamps is required to determine market value of the property on the basis of the points given in Rule 5 of the Rules. 14.At the time of making reference, the Sub-Registrar has considered inadequacy of stamps and valuation on the basis of the Guidelines notified under the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Ruies, 2000. It appears from the reference made by the Sub-Registrar that on the basis of the Guidelines, the Sub Registrar was of the view and was having reason to believe that market value of the property which was the subject matter of instrument has not been properly set forth in the instrument. Therefore, he has made reference to the Collector for determination of such market value and the duty. The order passed by the Collector of Stamps reveals that notice has been ^& M •y^—^ ^' ~^. B/- served upon the respondents and opportunity has been provided to them. 15.1n the aforesaid petitions the Board of Revenue has quashed the orders passed by the Collector of Stamps substantially on the ground that the Collector of Stamps has not provided opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 16.As per aforesaid rules and guidelines, the Collector of Stamps was under obligation to provide complete opportunity of hearing to both the parties to inspect the spot and to provide opportunity of adducing evidence and thereafter to pass the order on the basis of surrounding circumstances. It requires inquiry and investigation which would not be possible without such spot inspection and evidence, but without such evidence and spot inspection the Board of Revenue has assessed the market va!ue and thereby committed grave illegality. 17.For the foregoing reasons, the orders passed by the Board of Revt in the aforesaid writ petitions are not sustainable under the law. In exerdse of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, W.P.(Art.227) Nos.284/2011, 286/2011, 288/2011, 289/2011, 290/2011, 291/2011, 292/2011, 301/2011 and 302/2011 are hereby allowed and the orders impugned passed by the Board of Revenue are hereby set aside. Cases are remitted to the Court of Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur. The Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur after providing complete opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall assess the market value afresh on the basis of prevailing rule's and law. Parties are directed to remain present before the Collector of Stamps, Biiaspur on 28.11.2011 . No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge