HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.285 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep. By District Collector, Srikakulam and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND Rakesh Kumar Agarwal. .....RESPONDENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.285 of 2009 ORDER: Though notices were served, none appeared for the respondent. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in C.MA.No. 5 of 2007 dated 20.08.2008, setting aside the order passed by the District Registrar of Assurances, Srikakulam in order No.47- A/631/2006/G5 dated 27.02.2007. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent herein sought registration of his property of an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.No. 128/3p of Kusalapuram Village, Ponduru Sub-district of Srikakulam District, valuing it at Rs.3,29,500/-. The Sub- Registrar, Ponduru, valued the property at Rs.11,52,000/- and held that Rs.1,03,680/- was liable to be paid towards stamp duty and Rs.5,760/- towards registration fees. Since the petitioner had engrossed stamp duty of Rs.29,655/-, and had paid registration fees of Rs.1,650/-, the deficit stamp duty and registration fees to be paid was together determined at Rs.78,135/-. The Sub-Registrar, Ponduru conducted a spot inspection and, in his report, opined that the property was abutting the NH-5 Road at Srikakulam Bypass Road and it was reasonable to fix its market value at Rs.700/- per sq. yard. Before the District Registrar, Srikakulam, the respondent filed his objections stating that the lands located in the Kusalapuram Village were wet lands and were being irrigated through the tank and Narayanapuram Channel; prior to his purchase, the lands were cultivated by one Penta Laxmana Sharma; these lands were purchased by him for the purpose of cultivation; the lands were located far way from NH-5 and there was no proper way to the property; and, as the lands were in a low lying area, they were fit for cultivation and not for construction. The District Registrar, in his order dated 27.02.2002, observed that the schedule property was nearer to the Srikakulam – Visakhapatnam NH-5 Road which was situated at Srikakulam Bypass Junction; there was a marble Crusher and a Granite Unit located near the site; a Model School was run on the other side of NH-5; there were no crops at the time of spot inspection; and that his enquiries revealed that the property was being valued at Rs.30.00 lakhs to Rs.35.00 lakhs per acre. The District Registrar valued the property at Rs.33,88,000/- per acre, and, since the property sought to be registered was of an extent of Ac.0.34 cents, its value was determined at Rs.11,52,000/- and the respondent herein was asked to pay the differential amount. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in CMA.No.5 of 2007. The Learned Judge, in his order dated 20.08.2008, observed that the revenue records disclosed that the land under registration was wet land wherein wet crops such as paddy was being cultivated; the spot inspection report of the Sub- Registrar, and the enquiry made by the District Registrar, was devoid of any basis with regards assessment of the value of the land in square yards; there was no observation whether there were residential houses situated near the scheduled property; since the land was 9 feet low in depth, and was situated far away from NH-5, even if anybody intended to convert the agricultural land into house sites, the level of the land had to be raised to a minimum of 19 feet; there was no possibility to convert the land into a site; and it was unreasonable to fix the market value of the land as that of a house site. The learned Judge noted that the Advocate Commissioner had conducted an inspection and had submitted a report stating that the land under registration was situated at a distance 350 feet away from NH-5 and a water tank was located 100 feet away from the schedule property. The learned Judge held that an objective assessment, based on a reference to contemporary sale of the surrounding area, had to be made; the figures mentioned in the basic value register were merely guidelines and not conclusive; there were no structures on the property sought to be registered; and the value of the property as furnished by the respondent herein appeared to be proper. The impugned order was, accordingly, set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred. 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 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. The 2nd petitioner herein shall take necessary action, in accordance with law, within a period of 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:15.02.2010 usd