HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.980 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. 980 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. 11 of 2007 dated 30.10.2008, setting aside the order passed by the District Registrar-cum-Collector in proceedings No.964/2002/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.0.08¾ cents i.e. 423.50 sq. yards, on which stamp duty of Rs.9,625/- and registration fees of Rs.440/- was paid. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Srikakulam conducted a spot inspection and, in his report, stated that the property was surrounded by several big buildings; his local enquiries revealed that the land value was above Rs.1,400/- per sq. yard; and as per the encumbrance particulars, the nearby sites were registered at Rs.537/- per sq. yard as per document No. 150/01 and Rs.800/- per sq. yard as per document Nos. 507/01, 2997/01 and 3227/01. On a reference made, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for determination of the market value of the property the District Registrar, after hearing the parties concerned, observed that the property was surrounded by Zamia Maszid on the eastern side, on the southern side by the site of Baratam Narayana Murty, on the western side by the site of Dubaku Lakshmi and on the northern side by the Government Electrical Office; 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; 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 concluded that the site was situated in a commercially developed area. He opined that the market value should be fixed at Rs.1,400/- sq. yard and, accordingly, the respondents herein were called upon to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.55,600/- and registration fees of Rs.2,525/-. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein preferred CMA.No. 11 of 2007. The Learned Judge, in his order dated 30.10.2008, observed that the value of Rs.1,400/- sq. yard appeared to be based on the subjective assessment of the District Registrar, was without any basis and was contrary to the contemporary sale documents; the documents of the year 2001, i.e. document Nos.507/1, 299/77 and 322/71 showed that the value of the land was Rs.800/- per sq. yard; and the contemporary sale transactions showed that the land was registered at Rs.537/- per sq. yard. Taking into consideration the observation made by the registration authorities and the value fixed for contemporary sales at Rs.537/- per sq. yard, the Learned Judge held that it was appropriate to charge stamp duty for the document under registration at the rate of Rs.537/- per sq. yard. 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. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside both the orders of the Learned Senior Civil Judge and the 2nd petitioner herein, leaving it open to the 2nd petitioner to undertake the exercise of determining the market value of the property in question afresh after taking into consideration the factors prescribed in Rules 5(a) and (b) of the Rules. 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 to the District Registrar who shall, in accordance with the rules aforementioned, pass orders afresh 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:16.02.2010 usd