^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner: Respondents: Aopellant before The Revenue Board Petitioner: Writ Petition (22715992/2009 State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Biiaspur, (CG). VERSUS 1. Kishore Railwani, S/o Mannalal Rajlwani, R/o Ward No. 9, Gurughasi Das Ward, Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Akil-ur-Rehman Khan, S/o Late Manjur Ahmed Khan, R/o Ward No. 9, Gurughasidas Ward Bilha. District Bilaspur (C.G). (Setler). (Respondents No. 2 was respondent before the Board of Revenue) AND Writ Petition7227) 5995/2009 State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur, (CG). VERSUS Respondents: Appellant before Revenue Board The Smt. Sundari Bai, W/o Pritamdas Thadani, R/o village Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Biiaspur (CG). Shri Ramchandra Dubey, S/o late Shri Ganesh Prasad Dubey, R/o Ward No. 3, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) (Seller) (Respondents No. 2 was respondent before the Board of Revenue) AND Writ Petition f227) 5997/2009 Petitioner: State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur, (CG). VERSUS Respondents: Appejlant before The Revenue Board Manish Agrawal, S/o Shri M.C. Gupta, R/o Kududand, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, R/o village Gatouri, Patwari Halka No. 15, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). Kamai Kishore Chhabda, S/o Shri Hajarilal Chhabda, R/o Dipupara, Tarbahar, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) (Seller) (Respondents No. 2 was respondent before the Board of Revenue) ""•^. "^ "I. ss^;- ",,^y ^^ AND Writ Petition (22716081/2009 Petitioner: Respondents: Appellant before The Revenue Board Petitioner: (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Regjstrar, BJIaspur, (CG). VERSUS 1. Omprakash Jaiswani, aged 36 years S/o late Shri Nandlal Jaiswani, 2. Vijay Panjwani, S/o Arjundas Panjwani Both resident of village & Post Chakarbhata, Police station Chakarbhata, 3. Vijay Thadhani, S/o Pritamdas Thadhani, R/o Main Road, near Railway Phatak, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Smt. Kusum Bai, Wd/o Asok Kumar, herself and guardian of minor son Shubham, aged 11 years, S/o Ashok Kumar, R/'o viiiage, Post, Tahsil and District Nagour (Rajasthan) 5. Baladevi, D/o Ramdeo, herself & power of attorney holder of sister Basanta Bai, D/o Ramdeo, R/o village and post Nimbajodha, Tahsil & District Nagour (Rajashthan) 6. Vishnu Prasad, S/o Daulal, R/o Village & Post Merta City, Thana and Tahsil Merta City, District Nagour (Rajsthan) (Respondents No. 4 to 6 were respondents before the Board of Revenue) AND Writ Petition (22716082/2009 State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur, (CG). VERSUS Respondents: Appellant before The Revenue Board 1. Pritam Das Thadhani, S/o Meghraj Thadani, R/o Main Road Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Smt. Kiran Railwani, W/o Khiyal Das @ Satish Kumar Railwani, occupation Business, R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (CG). (Seller) (Respondent No. 2 was respondent before the Board of Revenue) AND Writ Petition (22716089/2009 Petitioner: (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub ^ Respondents: AppelSant before The Revenue Board 1. 2. Registrar, Bilaspur, (CG). VERSUS Omprakash Jaiswani, S/o late Shri Nandlal Jaiswani, 3. 4. Vijay Panjwani, S/o Arjundas Panjwani Both resident of village & Post Chakarbhata, Police station Chakarbhata, Vijay Thadhani, S/o Pritamdas Thandhani, R/o Main Road, near Railway Phatak, Bilha, Tahsil Biiha, District Bilaspur (CG). Smt. Kusum Bai, Wd/o Ashok Kumar, herself and guardian of minor son Shubham, aged 11 years, S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o village, Post, Tahsil and District Nagour (Rajasthan) Baladevi, D/o Ramdeo, herself & power of attorney holder of sister Basanta Bai, D/o Ramdeo, R/o village and post Nimbajodha, Tahsil & District Nagour (Rajasthan) Vishnu Prasad, S/o Daulal, R/o Village & Post Merta City, Thana and Tahsil MertaCity, DistrictNagour (Rajsthan) (Respondents No. 4 to 6 were respondents before the Board of Revenue) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) 5. 6. Mr.SushiJ Dubey, Government Advocate for the petitioner/State. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocatewith Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 1 (inW.P.(227) No. 5992/09). Mr. H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 (inW.P.(227) No. 5995/09). Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 1 (in W.P. (227) No. 5997/09). Mr. H.B. Agrawa!, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate forthe Respondents No. 1 to 3 (inW.P.(227) No. 6081/09). Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocatewith Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate forthe Respondent No. 1 (inW.P. (227)No. 6082/09). Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 (in W.P. (227) No. 6089/09). 1. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J.) ORDER (Passedon 27-9-2011) Writ petition (227) Nos. 5992/09, 5995/09, 5997/09, 6081/09, 6082/09 & 6089/09 filed against the order passed by Board of Revenue, ^"•:^>, ^<«®»^ 5 ^w^jji ^^ff //g Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in identical matter are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By this writ petition (227) Nos. 5992/09, 5995/09, 5997/09. 6081/09, 6082/09 & 6089/09 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner/State has challenged the legality and propriety of the orders dated 26/11/2008, 26/11/2008, 3/12/2008, 26/11/2008, 26/11/2008 & 26/11/2008 passed by Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Appeal Case Nos. A-495/B-105/2004-2005, A/502/S.A.-B-105/81/2006, A/02/S.A./B-105/80/2006, A/494/B-105/2004-05, A-498/B-105/2004-2005 & A/502/B-105/2004-05 whereby orders passed by Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur dated 10/6/2005, 28/1/2006, 10/3/2006, 30/4/2005, 10/6/2005 & 30/4/2005 in Case Nos. 56/B-105/2004-2005, 165/B-105/2004-05, 63/B- 105/2005-06, 23/B-105/2004-05, 61/8-105/2004-2005 & 22/B-105/2004- 05 have been modified. 3. As per order passed by Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur on the basis of reference made to it under Section 47-A(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act'), after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and following procedure Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur has assessed market value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty and registration which was challenged by the respondents before the Board of Revenue and vide orders impugned Board of Revenue has modified the order passed by Collector of Stamp. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders passed by Board of Revenue and orders passed by Collector of Stamp, and other documents filed on behalf of the parties. .•^^. ,^^':,:^), j^ ^ .^ ^ Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/petitioner vehemently argued that on the reference made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, the Collector of Stamp has enquired into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, has arrived at a finding that the respondents have not properiy valued the property subject matter instrument and has directed for proper valuation andpayment of stamp charges. The Board of Revenue while exercising the appellate jurisdiction has without any ground for interference reversed the reasoned and well-founded order of the Collector of Stamps and thereby committed illegality. Learned Govt. Advocate further argued that the Board of Revenue has not assessed the market value of the land under Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rules') and guidelines issued under Rule 4 of Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (in short 'Guidelines Rules') and while modifying the order the Board of Revenue has overlooked the aforesaid legal provisions and thereby committed illegality. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate for the contesting respondents opposed the petitions and argued that the Collector of Stamp has not assessed the land on the basls of Rule 5 of the Rules and has not followed the guidelines issued under the "Guidelines Rules" at the time of assessment of market value of the land. The Collector of Stamps was under obligation to examine the matter in the light of the facts and circumstances, which effects the market value of the property. 6 St> 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents further argued that without following procedure, considering guidelines and spot inspection Collector of Stamp has passed the order which has been corrected/modified by the Board of Revenue on the basis of prevailing rules and guidelines. By modifying the order Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdiction error or grave illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the matter of Mohd Yunus. v. Mohd. Mustaaim and others reoorted in AIR 1984 SC 38 in which Supreme Court has held that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. 10. Order passed by Collector of Stamp reveal that complete opportunity of hearing has not been provided to both the parties. Collector of Stamps was under obligation to enquire into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties passed order in accordance with sub- section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act on the basis of reference made to it under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act. The order passed by the Collector of Stamps under sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 47-A of the Act was appealable before the Commissioner under sub-section (4) and second appeal was maintainable before the Board of Revenue as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (5). After abolition of the post of Commissioner, sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act was 5i omitted vide the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance No.10/2003) with effect from 6-10-2003 and sub-section (5) was amended. Again the post of Commissioner was created vide the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 (Ordinance No.1 of 2008) published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on 5-4- 2008. After re-creation of the post of Commissioner, sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 47-A of the Act were amended vide the Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.25 of 2010) published in the Gazette on 18-10-2010 and thereby the provisions as stood prior to 6-10- 2003 have been restored. 11. In accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, at the time of registration of instrument the registering authority is competent to refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps, if he has reason to believe that the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, then he may, before registering such iristrument, refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps for determination of the market-value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector is required to hold an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and after providing opportunity of being heard, determine the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. 12. For the purpose of valuation of property for proper stamps and registration, the State of Chhattisgarh has made the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975. Rule 5 of the Rules provides principles for determination of market value. ^2- The Collector of Stamps is required to determine market value of the property on the basis of the points given in Rule 5 of the Rules. 13. At the time of making reference, the Sub-Registrar has considered inadequacy of stamps and valuation on the basis of the Guidelines notified under the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000. It appears from the reference made by the Sub- Registrar that on the basis ofthe Guidelines, the Sub Registrar was ofthe view and was having reason to believe that market value of the property which was the subject matter of instrument has not been properly set forth in the instrument. Therefore, he has made reference to the Collector for determination of such market value and the duty. The order passed by the Collector of Stamps reveals that notice has been served upon the respondents and opportunity has been provided to them. 14. Order was challenged before the Board of Revenue. Order passed by Board of Revenue reveal that Board of Revenue has also committed same iliegality. While passing the order impugned Collector of Stamp and Board of Revenue were under obligation to provide complete opportunity of hearing to the parties and to pass order in accordance with Rule 5 and guidelines but both the authorities have committed an illegality by not following rules and also committed jurisdictional error. 15. As held in case of Mohd Yunus. (Supra) that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. High Court does not act an appellate Court or Tribunal unless it is shown that tribunal has acted in disregard the principle of natural justice and the procedure adopted by him was not inconsonance with the procedure established bythe law. .-^ ^ 53 B '^?lit^it^'' "f i // 'SSBES^f ssss^ 16. Present petitions are substantially covered by theorder dated 20/9/201 1 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7438/2009. In the present case both the authorities had acted in disregard of principle of natural justice and the procedure adopted by them was not inconsonance procedure established by the law. Consequently, Writ Petition (227) Nos. 5992/09, 5995/09, 5997/09, 6081/09, 6082/09 & 6089/09 are allowed. Orders passed by Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 26/11/2008, 26/11/2008, 3/12/2008, 26/11/2008, 26/11/2008 & 26/11/2008 in Appeal Case Nos. A- 495/B-105/2004-2005, A/502/S.A.-B-105/81 /2006, A/02/S.A./B- 105/80/2006, A/494/B-105/2004-05, A-498/B-105/2004-2005 & A/502/B- 105/2004-05 and orders passed by Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur dated 10/6/2005. 28/1/2006, 10/3/2006, 30/4/2005, 10/6/2005 & 30/4/2005 in Case Nos. 56/B-105/2004-2005, 165/B-105/2004-05, 63/B-105/2005-06, 23/B-105/2004-05, 61/B-105/2004-2005 & 22/B-105/2004.05 are hereby quashed. All the cases remanded back to the Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur. Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur after providing complete opportunity of hearing to the parties shall assess market value afresh on the basis of prevailing rules. Parties are directed to remain present before the Collector of Stamp, Bilaspur on 8/11/2011 for further proceeding of the case. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge \\/