THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 37 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 39 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 77 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 283 OF 2009 Date: 02.12.2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 37 OF 2009: Between: State of A.P. rep., by District Collector, Srikakulam and another. … Petitioners and Krishnakant Agarwal. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 37 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 39 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 77 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 283 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard both the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Mrs. K. Lalitha, Learned Counsel for the sole respondent in all the four C.R.Ps, and with their consent the C.R.Ps are being disposed of at the stage of admission. It would suffice for the disposal of all the four C.R.Ps if the facts in C.R.P. No. 37 of 2009 are noted. This C.R.P. is filed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in C.M.A. No.3 of 2007 dated 20.08.2008 setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein on 27.02.2009. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the District Registrar have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to have the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in C.M.A. Nos.3, 4, 6 and 9 of 2007 dated 20.08.2008 set aside. The sole respondent purchased different extents of land and, on the basis of the valuation shown in the sale deed, paid Stamp Duty. On the ground that the property was under valued only to evade payment of stamp duty, the 2nd petitioner herein initiated proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to determine the market value of the schedule property pertaining to Document No.P67/06 holding that the value of the property was not correctly set forth in the Document. The 2nd petitioner relied on a spot inspection report submitted to him by the Sub-Registrar, Ponduru stating that, on inspection, he found the property was nearby NH 5 and close to the by-pass junction area and that it was reasonable to fix the market value of the property at Rs.700/- per square yard as the value of land in that area was more than Rs.700/- per square yard. The sole respondent herein appeared before the 2nd petitioner and contended that the lands were being irrigated through the tank and Narayanapuram village; that, prior to purchase of these lands by them, they were cultivated by the vendor and that he had also purchased these lands for the purpose of cultivation. The respondent further stated that, though the northern boundary was shown as NH 5, the fact remained that it was away from NH 5; there was no proper passage to the property; the land was situated in a low lying area; and that it could be put to use only for cultivation and not laying residential plots. The 2nd petitioner herein relied on the spot inspection report to come to the conclusion that the schedule property was nearer to the Srikakulam-Visakhapatnam NH 5 road which was situated at the Srikakulam by-pass junction; there was a marble crusher and a granite unit near the site; a model school was being run on the other side of the NH 5; and local enquiries revealed that the property was being valued at Rs.30 to 35 lakhs per acre. Considering these facts, and the data available in the office records, the 2nd petitioner valued the property at Rs.33,88,000/- per acre and, as the property sold was of an extent of Ac.0.34 cts, he determined its value at Rs.11,52,000/- per acre i.e., Rs.700/- per square yard. He determined the stamp duty payable on the property at Rs.1,03,680/- and the Registration fee at Rs.5,760/-. As the Respondent had already paid Rs.29,655/- towards stamp duty and Rs.1,682/- towards Registration fee, he was directed to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,025/- and the Registration fee of Rs.4,110/-. The Respondent was ordered to pay the differential amount of Rs.78,135/-within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The respondent preferred an appeal, in C.M.A. No.3 of 2007, before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam who, by order dated 20.08.2008 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the 2nd petitioner on 27.02.2007 holding that the valuation shown by the respondent was proper. The Learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the Sub-Registrar’s record itself disclosed that the schedule land was wet land wherein paddy crop was being cultivated by drawing water from Kondaiah cheruvu, in the revenue records the land was shown as wet land wherein wet crop was being cultivated and the 2nd petitioner had not held that there were residential houses near the property. While noting that there was a crusher nearby, the Learned Senior Civil Judge relied on the Advocate Commissioner’s report and observed that the very fact that a granite factory was located nearby would diminish the value of the land as it would result in sound and dust pollution and nobody would prefer to level up the land to a height of about 20 feet to live near a granite factory. While observing that an objective assessment based on reference to contemporary sale in surrounding areas should have been considered, and not the subjective assessment of the authority, the Learned Senior Civil Judge held that the spot inspection report was a subjective assessment without any viable basis. The Learned Judge also held that there was no structures on the land and it did not have any commercial value as it was in a low lying area in the midst of the agricultural lands. The learned Judge concluded that the value shown by the Registrar did not reflect the correct state of affairs and, on the other hand, the valuation of the property as determined by the respondent appeared to be proper. The Learned Senior Civil Judge held that the actual value of the property depended on its location and utility and the nature of the transaction should be taken as a guide in determining the market value and the fact that these lands were located in the midst of agricultural lands would show that the value to be determined was on the basis that the land was agricultural land. 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 are binding on both 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) is in respect of house sites. These Rules ought to have been considered by the 2nd petitioner herein 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. 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 basis, 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, if he so chooses, to undertake a fresh exercise of determining the market value of the property in question based on the factors prescribed in Rules 5(a) and (b) of the Rules. Mrs. K. Lalitha, learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that the document in question has not been registered till date though it was presented for registration as early as in the year 2006. It is made clear that in case the 2nd petitioner herein does not initiate proceedings afresh, under Section 47-A, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the document in question shall be registered and released. If, however, the 2nd petitioner initiates action under Section 47-A within the period aforementioned, he shall conduct an enquiry, comply with the procedural requirements of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules made thereunder and pass an order afresh within two months from the date of initiation of the proceedings. All the four C.R.Ps are disposed of accordingly. ____________________________ Date: 02-12-2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR