CMPMO 165 of 2008. 7.8.2008 Present: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for the respondents. The State has filed this petition against the judgment of the learned District Judge in appeal preferred by the respondents against the order passed by the District Collector, Solan under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The Collector, by order dated 17.7.2006, in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp (Himachal Amendment) Act, 1988 held that the action of the Registrar in impounding the sale deed for under assessing the market value of the property was in order. In appeal, the learned District Judge held that the Collector had taken the market value of the shop on the basis of average value of the property of Mauza Jaqwahar Park, Solan between November, 2000 and October, 2001. The learned Court holds that the value of the shop has been assessed at Rs.7,96,460/- per hundred square yards. He holds that the Collector has not assessed the value of the land inclusive of structure and cannot be assessed as the value on which stamp is required to be affixed. Two factors have been considered by -2- the learned District Judge. One that only structure has been sold and is subject matter of sale deed and the sale has been made in a manner that no right has been given to the vendee to raise construction over and above the structure sold which right has been reserved for the vendors themselves. Second, that the vendee was already a tenant of the shop under him. According to him, this would naturally reduce the value of the structure sold as the value of the land has not been included. The learned appellate Court holds and rightly so that in case of tenanted property, it is a notorious fact that its sale would not fetch such price as the property which is vacant and this fact has not been taken notice of by the Collector. Tenancy in the shop is not disputed. The Court concludes: “9. The value of the property as per the valuation by the government officials has been stated to be slightly less than Rs.1,50,000/-. However, the sale deed has been made for Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, even if the average value as shown in the record of the Collector is shown to be correct then by giving allowance of the fact that the shop which has been sold was on 40 square metres of land which has not been sold and the appellants have reserved the right to -3- raise construction over the structure to themselves, the property could not have fetched more price that what has been valued. Of course the property could have fetched much more price than the average price as worked out by the Collector’s office had it been free from all encumbrances. But in this case it was otherwise. The property sold was already with the tenant to whom it had been sold excluding the land underneath it and that too reserving the right of raising construction to the vendors. In view of this, the valuation as made by the learned Collector is not correct and I take the value of the property as to what has been stated in the sale deed and the finding of the learned Collector is therefore not sustainable in law and on facts. The point is answered accordingly.” The learned Additional Advocate General has assailed the order on a number of grounds including the fact that there was no tenancy and the valuation arrived at by the Registering Officer was correct. These findings of fact arrived at by the learned appellate Court cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction or perversity writ large on the face of the record. The learned appellate Court has rightly held that the premises were tenanted -4- which fact stands established from the revenue record itself and on the question of sale, he holds, after consideration of the sale instrument, that only structure has been sold and not the rights in the land or over the structure. The Court also concludes that all construction to be raised over and above the suit premises would be by the owners and not by the tenant, who becomes owner only of the demised shop. There is thus no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall also stand dismissed. August 7, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.