IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CM(M) 845/2006 # Satyavir Singh ........ Appellants ! through: Mr.G.Umapathy, Advocate with Mr.A.Rajnarayan, Advocate VERSUS $ Collector of Stamps ........ Respondents ^ through: Mr.Prem Mishra, Advocate for Mr.V.K.Tandon for Respts.1 & 2 % DATE OF DECISION: 9.1.2008 CORAM: * Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No.38/2003, an appeal against an order passed under Section 47(a) of the Indian Stamp Act requiring petitioner to pay the requisite stamp duty treating the value of the subject property at Rs.7,82,000/-. 3. The Collector of Stamps had determined the value Page 1 of 4 of the property as under :- “A. Value of land @ 50% of Rs.8360 per sq. mtr. the L & DO Rate of M.B.Road Locality notified upto the year 2000 and comes as Rs.4,180/- x 84 sq. mtrs. is Rs.3,51,120/- B. 10% cost increased for the years 2000-2002 on Rs.3,51,120/- which comes to Rs.3,86,232/- C. Cost of construction @ Rs.385/- x 900 sq. fts. comes to Rs.3,46,500/- D. Total value of the property in question i.e. B+C above is Rs.7,32,732/-” 4. Inter alia, in the appeal, petitioner had specifically pleaded that the subject property RZ-78, Gali No.10, Tughlakabad Extension was built on land comprised in Khasra No.499, Tughlakabad Extension. That the area came up on undeveloped land. It was pleaded that the colony Tughlakabad Extension was an unauthorized colony till it was regularized on 23.9.1983. It was specifically pleaded that the locality having come up as an illegal colony was devoid of facilities such as sewage, drain, parking etc. It was specifically pleaded in appeal that land rates notified by L & DO pertaining to regular colonies developed on government land by governmental Page 2 of 4 agencies could not form the yardstick to determine the land rate of the subject property. Various sale deeds which were registered by the Sub-Registrar, Delhi pertaining to Tughlakabad Extension were relied upon as proof of the value of property in Tughlakabad Extension. 5. The impugned order dated 27.4.2006 does not consider the submissions made in appeal. I find no mention in the impugned order as to what would be the effect of subject land being situate in a colony which was unauthorized but was subsequently regularized. I find no mention in the impugned order as to how the colony Tughlakabad Extension is similar and comparable with colonies developed by L&DO. I find no mention in the impugned order as to why registered sale deeds in Tughlakabad Extension would not constitute good evidence to determine the value of property in Tughlakabad Extension. 6. Suffice would it be to state that in relation to value of land, land rates notified by the government are mere evidence, but similarity and comparability is the sine qua non before applying rates so notified while determining the value of a particular property. 7. The petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 27.4.2006 in RCA No.38/2003. 8. The appeal is restored. Learned Additional District Page 3 of 4 Judge would re-decide the appeal in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations in the present order. 9. No costs. January 09, 2008 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. vg Page 4 of 4