THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1958, 1959, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2175 and 2244 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:- The petitioner in all these seven revisions is a limited company called M/s.Avnash Estates & Resorts Limited with its registered office at Visakhapatnam. It filed them against seven similar orders all dated 5th February 2007 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam which is the appellate authority under Section 47-A(5) of the Stamp Act 1899 confirming the orders of the Collector under the said provision regarding the increase in the valuation of the properties under seven sale deeds purchased by it (the petitioner company). Hence the controversy in all these revisions is same and they can be disposed of by this common order. 2. The circumstances which led to the filing of these revisions are these. The petitioner-company purchased under five different sale deeds all dated 31.01.2005 1500 sq. yards, 1794 sq. yards, 1794 sq. yards, 1780 sq. yards and 1794 sq. yards for various considerations from the concerned vendors. These five sale deeds pertain to CRP Nos.1958 of 2007, 1959 of 2007, 2009 of 2007, 2010 of 2007 and 2011 of 2007. The sale consideration worked out to Rs.1350/- per sq. yard and the total consideration for each of the above extents is mentioned in each concerned sale deed. The petitioner company also purchased two other extents of 1794 sq. yards and 1782 sq. yards under two other sale deeds dated 29.03.2005 respectively from the same vendors. In these two transactions also the rate per square yard mentioned as Rs.1350/-. These two sale deeds are the subject matters of the CRP Nos.2175 of 2007 and 2244 of 2007. This information is given by both sides. 3. It is stated by the petitioner-company that when the above sale deeds were presented for registration the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam after examining the sale deeds felt that the properties in all the above sale deeds were under valued. Accordingly he referred all the sale deeds for fixing proper valuation to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act. The references made by the Joint Sub-Registrar were taken up by the Collector under the Stamp Act i.e. the District Registrar of Assurances. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner-company the said District Registrar passed separate orders dated 28.05.2005 in each of the said references increasing the value of the lands to Rs.6,060/- per square yard and accordingly fixed the stamp duty, registration fee and other charges. It is seen from the orders of the District Registrar that the lands covered by all the seven sale deeds are on the sea side on the beach of Visakhapatnam. 4. Questioning the above orders of the District Registrar the petitioner-company preferred appeals before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam which is the appellate authority. The said appellate authority dismissed all the seven appeals by its separate orders all dated 5th February 2007. Questioning the said appellate authority’s orders these CRPs are filed. 5. It would be sufficient to note the reasons given by the District Registrar for his ultimate conclusion in each of his orders dated 28.05.2005 for increasing the valuation and the said reasons are common in all of his orders. Hence it is proposed to extract those reasons given in his order dated 28.05.2005 which pertains to the appellate order against which CRP No.1958 of 2007 is filed and the said order reads as follows. “In exercise of the powers vested with me as Collector Under provision of Sec.3 of the Sec.47A of IS Act, I have inspected the property personally. The land in question measuring 780.29 Sq.Yds with 1500 Sft. ACC Shed out of 15576 Sq Yds lies near Alluri Seetharamaraju Square exactly between Palm Beach Hotel and K.S. Raju Associates buildings on the Beach Road. On the other side of the Beach Road Dutch layout is there which is a posh residential locality. It is exactly on Beach side with beautiful location. At the time of inspection it is noticed that the ACC Shed is renovated use for some business purposes like resorts or restaurant etc. There are temporary structures on ground because permanent structures cannot be allowed as it is in Coastal Regulatory Zone-II for residential purpose, they can use the property for commercial purpose with temporary structures. It is provided with civic amenities. Transport facilities are there. It is near to all the important places. By taking into al the points into consideration the value of the land is fixed as Rs.6060/- per square yard (i.e.) value fixed by the Department.” 6. In all his orders the District Registrar first considered the report of Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam regarding the market value of the property covered by each of the seven sale deeds and he also proceeded to consider the value fixed by the Registration Department and then gave similar reasons which are extracted supra in all the orders. 7. It should be noted that from the above reasons given by the District Registrar he compared the location of the properties covered by all the seven sale deeds and stated that the lands are located between Palm Beach Hotel and K.S. Raju Associates Buildings on the beach road and that there is also a Dutch layout which is a posh residential locality and then observed that his inspection revealed that some ACC sheds were renovated on the lands for some business purposes like resorts or restaurants etc. He then proceeded to observe further that permanent structures cannot be allowed on the lands in question as they are in Coastal Regulatory Zone for residential purpose and that purchasers can use the property for commercial purpose with temporary structures. Giving the above reasons he proceeded to fix the market value at Rs.6,060/- per square yard and stated that it is the value fixed by the Department. 8. It may be noted that the Government have framed the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short Rules) under Section 47-A read with Section 75 of the Stamp Act. Rule 5 consisting of four clauses of the said Rules prescribes certain guidelines to be followed by a Collector for valuing various properties when he deals with a case under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Clause (a) speaks of guidelines for lands, Clause (b) speaks of guidelines for house sites, Clause (c) speaks of guidelines for buildings and Clause (d) speaks of guidelines in the case of properties other than lands, house sites and buildings. 9. The reasons given by the District Registrar which are already extracted supra would show that the lands in question cannot be used for residential purpose because of the Coastal Regulatory Zone-II and it therefore follows that the said lands cannot be used as house sites. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company. The lands in question here cannot admittedly fall under Rule 5(c) which deals with buildings. Thus the lands should fall under Rule 5(a) or Rule 5(b). The District Registrar did not specify under which of these two categories the lands in question may fall. He however proceeded to compare the lands in question with Dutch residential colony which he says is a posh residential colony and the area between Alluri Seetharamaraju Square, Palm Beach Hotel and K.S. Raju Associates buildings and then proceeded to fix the value which he fixed. Even there he did not specify about the values of the properties situated in those areas but observing that the values of the said properties are very high he proceeded to fix the value of the land in question is at Rs.6,060/- per square yard basing on the departmental valuation. 10. The above increase in valuation to Rs.6,060/- per square yard works out to nearly four times more than the value of Rs.1350/- per square yard mentioned in the sale deeds. It is now well settled that the departmental valuation cannot be the basis for increasing the valuation for the simple reason that some times the departmental valuation may be more than the market value which a property may reasonably expected to fetch or some times it may even be less than that valuation. The District Registrar proceeded to observe that the lands may be put to use for beach resorts or opening a restaurant on the beach and it is not known on what basis he came to that conclusion and even if it is put to such a use how the value will be more than four times in a case like this. It is true that if the lands fall under Rule 5(d) of the above Rules he may consider the purpose for which the property may be put to use or he may consider other purposes if the properties fall under Rule 5(a) of the Rules. It is seen that without considering the guidelines applicable as stipulated in Rule 5 of the Rules and without even mentioning the valuation of the properties which he mentioned in the impugned orders, the District Registrar ultimately went by the departmental valuation and fixed the value of the lands in question at Rs.6,060/- per square yard. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company argued that in some other similar cases the valuation was fixed around Rs.3000/- or Rs.3500/- per square yard and that was also confirmed. There is however no clinching material before this Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-company and this Court cannot fix the valuation in the absence of any material/evidence. The approach of the District Registrar shows that by mentioning about certain other properties and presuming that their values are high without mentioning their values he ultimately depended upon the departmental valuation and disposed of the matters. 12. The appellate authority in its orders did not as mentioned supra consider the matters having regard to the guidelines given in Rule 5 of the Rules. It also generally mentioned about the high values of the properties and then confirmed all the orders of the District Registrar. The learned Assistant Government Pleader noticing the above aspect requested for a remand with a direction to the District Registrar to dispose of the matters again having regard to the guidelines given in Rule 5 of the Rules. Thus in the circumstances I am of the opinion that the impugned orders should be set aside and all the matters should be remitted to the District Registrar with a direction to dispose of the same afresh keeping in view the Rules and the guidelines for valuation of properties after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides. 13. Accordingly all these CRPs are allowed and the matters are remanded back to the District Registrar with the above direction. The District Registrar shall make all efforts to dispose of the matters afresh as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14th March 2011 CVRK