HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1480 of 2009 ORDER: The District registrar & Collector, Srikakulam has filed this revision against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in C.M.A. No.7 of 2007 dated 29.09.2008. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein sought registration of document No.P 73/2006 dated 29.03.2006 which relates to an extent of Ac.0.48 cts of land in Sy. No.339/16 of Kesavaraopet, S.M. Puram village, Ponduru Sub-District, Srikakulam District. The consideration for the sale, as shown therein, was Rs.96,000/- (i.e., at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre). The District Registrar & Collector, in exercise of his powers, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, determined the market value of the property at Rs.13,94,000 i.e., Rs.29,04,000/- per acre. It is evident from the order of the District registrar that the sub-registrar, Ponduru, in his spot inspection report, had stated that the property was abutting the road leading to S.M. Puram Peta, and was adjacent to the claimants R.C.C. house in Kinthali Mill junction, having high potential; local enquiries had revealed that the value was around Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and, since the extent of land was Ac.0.49 cts, it could be valued at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, instead of taking into account the square yard rate. Notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein who submitted their objections contending that the land was agricultural land; Gogunara crop was grown thereon; the land was not fit for house sites; and, on the schedule property, green gram, tomato, beans etc., were cultivated. The District registrar held that the property had high potential and he came to know that the land was valued at Rs.29 lakhs to 30 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, the market value of the schedule property was taken as Rs.29,04,000/-, and the market value of Ac.0.49 cts of land was determined as Rs.13,94,000/-. Accordingly, stamp duty of Rs.1,25,460/- and Registration fee of Rs.6,970/- was levied and, since the stamp duty of Rs.8,640/- and Registration fee of Rs.490/- had already been collected, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein were directed to pay the difference of Rs.1,23,310/- within a month from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein carried the matter in appeal to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam who, by his order in C.M.A. No.7 of 2007 dated 29.09.2008, upheld the valuation of the property as fixed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. The Learned Judge referred to the basic value register in support of his conclusion that the land was around Rs.190/- per square yard and not Rs.600/-. The learned judge held that there was documentary evidence adduced by the appellants, i.e., registered sale deeds of the period relevant to the transaction which disclosed that the value of the property, as fixed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, was quite reasonable and represented its true market value on the date of the transaction. The sale deeds, relied upon by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, are the registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1994, 14.03.2001, 23.03.2001 and 29.12.2000 all of which relate to periods, ranging between five years to twelve years, before the date of execution of the document in question on 29.03.2006. The Learned Judge has not even examined the contents of the said registered sale deeds nor has he referred to its location, the value of the property as mentioned in the registered sale deeds, whether the land, which formed part of these registered sale deeds, was similar to the land of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein etc. The Learned Judge, while referring to the basic value register wherein the price of land was fixed at Rs.190/- per square yard, has also not stated as to where the lands, referred to in the Basic Value Register, were situated; or the period during which the price of these lands was fixed at Rs.190/- per square yard. The Learned Judge merely accepted the valuation, adopted by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, in setting aside the order of the District registrar, even in the absence of adequate and sufficient evidence in this regard. The less said the better regarding the order of the District registrar. Except to state that he came to know that the value of the property was Rs.29,40,000/-per acre, the basis for such a conclusion, or for the value of the property being assessed at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, is not discernable from the order of the District registrar. 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 maybe 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 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 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 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 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 Rule 5 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 petitioner herein has also not taken into consideration all the factors prescribed in Rule 5 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 petitioner herein, leaving it open to the petitioner to undertake the exercise of determining the market value of the property in question afresh after taking into consideration the factors prescribed in Rule 5(a) and (b) of the Rules. In as much 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 09.09.2010 MRKR