'l<8...^, ••lt€, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.285 of 2011 and 17 other connected matters State of Chhattisgarh - Versus - Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur and others tll Post for Dronouncement of order on 5"' of September, 201 1 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Mfi ^H^ ;1 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.285 of2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Premlata Agrawal, W/o Shri Shyam Agrawal, R/o Village Nipania, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Shyamlal, S/o Patiram, R/o Village and Tahsil Bilha, District Bitaspur (CG). (Respondent No.2) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.287 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (RespondentNo.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Premlata Agrawal, W/o Shri Shyam Agrawal, R/o Village Nipania, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Balram, S/o Rajkumar, R/o Village and Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). (Respondent No.2) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.303 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Premlata Agrawal, W/o Shri Shyam Agrawal, R/o Village Nipania, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Ramcharan, S/o Ramadhar, R/o Village and Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). (Respondent No.2) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.637 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) 2. M/s Mangal Ispat & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Bilha, through Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Moolchand Agrawal, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Satish Relwani, S/o Arjun Das Relwani, R/o Nehru Nagar, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.638 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenye Bilaspur, .through its Registrar. 2. Naresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Moolchand Agrawal, R/o Main Road, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Smt. Phutan Bai, D/o late Roopchand, R/o Bilha, Tahsil Bilha Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.639 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Premlata Agrawal, W/o Shri Shyam Agrawal, R/o Village Nipania, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Makunda, S/o Bhaklu, R/o Ward No.7, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). (Respondent No.2) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.640 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: 1. (Appellant) 2. (Respondent No.2) 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. Ramphal, S/oShriKunwar Singh, R/o Hirri, Gondpara, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Shri Ramkhilawan, S/o Ghunari & 3 others, R/o Mohbhatha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). ^ y/ ^sy Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.642 of20j1 PETITIONER/: (RespondentNo.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No:2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Naresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Moolchand Agrawal, R/o Main Road, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Ram Prasad, S/o Shri Ramadhar, R/o Ward No.3, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.645 of2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Smt. Premlata Agrawal, W/o Shri Shyam Agrawal, R/o Village Nipania, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Indal, S/o Ramcharan & 4 Ors, R/o Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1 138 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Baldeo Prasad Agrawal, S/o Shri Chouthmal Agrawal,. R/o village Kesla, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Ghanaram, S/o Shri Kujal Yadav, R/o Kesla, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.1139 of2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPQNDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. (Appellant) 2. (Respondent No.2) 3. Naresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Moolchand Agrawal, R/o Main Road, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). Bhuruwaram, S/o Shri Runguram Yadav, R/o Ward No.7, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1141 of2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. Smt. Saroj Agrawal, W/o Shri Baldeo Agrawal, R/o Kesla Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). Ghanaram, S/o Shri Kujal Yadav, R/o Kesla, Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1699 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, S/o 'late Shri Hukumchand Gupta, R/o Mungeli Road, Kududand, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Salik Ram, S/o late Shri Salharu Yadav, R/o village Mohda, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1701 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, S/o late Shri Hukumchand Gupta, R/o Mungeli Road, Kududand, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Sadhram, S/o Shri Baliramand others, By Caste Lodhi, R/o village Bilha, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (CG). r Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.1702 of2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. Atal Shrivastava, S/o late J.P. Shrivastava, R/o Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & DistriGt Bilaspur (CG). Smt. Chandrakali, aged about 55 years, Wife late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Lokeshwar Prasad Dhuri, aged about 27 years, S/o late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Jageshwar Dhrui; aged about 19 years, S/o late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Gauribai Dhuri, aged about 30 years, D/o late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri, Padmawati Bai, aged about 23 years, D/o late Shri Rameshwar Dhuri Respondent Nos.3 to 7 all R/o Near Shitala Mata Temple, Kisanpara, Chantidih, Bilaspur Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1703 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Sub- 2. 3. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. Smt, Jayanti Bose, W/o Shri Ganesh Bose, R/o Songanga Colony, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (GG). Shailesh Singh Bisen, S/o Shri Ramnarayan Singh Bisen, R/o near Satyanarayan Temple, Podibahar, Kosabadi Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.2196 of2011 PE-TITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: Sub- State of Chhattisgarh through Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. n 3 ;; ^•-«..£^' (Appellant) (Respondent No.2) 2. Atal Shrivastava, S/o late J.P. Shrivastava, R/o Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Shri Ram Bahoran Sahu, S/o Sukhnath Sahu (Seller), R/o Village Sendri, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Writ Petition (Art. 227)No.2197 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Respondent No.1) RESPONDENTS: (AppeIlantNo.1) (Appellant No.2) (Respondent No.2) 1 State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. 2. Arun Adwani, S/o Shri Rajkumar 3. Kishore Adwani, S/o Shri Bhagchand, Both R/o Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 4. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, S/o Late Shri Hukumchand Gupta, R/o Kududand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) {Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. None present for the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur. Mr. Somnath Verma, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 in W.P. (Art. 227) Nos.285/2011, 642/201 1 and 2197/2011 . Mr. Somnath Verma, counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P. (Art. 227) Nos.287/2011, 303/2011, 637/2011, 638/2011, 639/2011, 640/2011, 645/2011, 1138/2011, 1139/2011, 1141/2011, 1699/2011, 1701/2011, 1702/2011, 1 703/2011 and 2196/201 1. None present for the seller(s) also. No representation is made. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (5-9-2011) 1. By filing following writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Chhattisgarh/petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur iri-appeal under Section 47-A (4) ofthe Indian StampAct, 1899 (fop.short 'the Act') against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, ^- Bilaspur under Section 47-A (2) of the Act, whereby the Board of Revenue has quashed/modified the order passed by the Coltector of Stamps: - W.P. (Art. 227) No. Appeal Case No. {u/S 47A (4)} and Date of order passed by the BOR Ref. Case No. {u/S 47A (2)} and Date of order passed by the Collector of Stamps Property situate at Nature of order passed byBOR (Quashed /Modified) 285/2011 No.A/02/SA/B-105/ 124/09 Dt. 10-12-2009 No.336/8-105/2008- 09 Dt.29-10-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 287/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 123/09 Dt. 10-12-2000 N0.335/B-105/2008- 09 Dt. 29-10-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 303/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 125/09 Dt. 10-12-2009 N0.337/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.29-10-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 637/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 28/09 Dt.9-4-2009 N0.09/B-105/2008-09 Dt. 13-3-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 638/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 26/09 Dt.9-4-2009 N0.26/B-105/2008-09 Dt. 13-3-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 639/2011 NO.A/02/S.A./B-105/ 76/2010 Dt.9-7-2010 N0.159/B-105/2009- 10 Dt.24-6-2010 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 640/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 24/09 Dt.9-4-2009 N0.34/B-105/2008-09 Dt. 13-3-2009 Vill. Hirri Godpara, Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 642/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 27/09 Dt.9-4-2009 N0.23/B-105/2008-09 Dt. 13-3-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 645/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 78/2010 Dt.9-7-2010 No.158/8-105/2009- 10 Dt.24-6-2010 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 1138/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 61/09 Dt. 13-7-2009 N0.222/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.29-5-2009 Vill. Kesla, Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 1139/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 60/09 Dt. 13-7-2009 N0.198/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.29-5-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 1141/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 62/09 Dt. 13-7-2009 Mo.221/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.29-5-2009 Vill. Kesla, Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Modified 1699/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 73/09 Dt. 1-8-2009 N0.262/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.26-6-2009 Vill. Mohda, Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 1701/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 75/09 Dt.7-9-2009 No.280/8-105/2008- 09 Dt.30-7-2009 Vill. & Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 1702/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 79/09 Dt.7-9-2009 N0.229/B-105/2008- 09 Dt. 10-8-2009 Vill.Chatidih, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 1703/20T1 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 74/09, Dt.7-9-2009 N0.253/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.24-7-2009 Vill.Chatidih, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur Qiiashed 2196/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 78/09, Dt.7-9-2009 N0.282/B-105/2008- 09 Dt.6-8-2009 Vill. Sendri, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur Quashed 2197/2011 NO.A/02/SA/B-105/ 63/2010 Dt.22-5-2010 N0.152/B-105/2009- 10 Dt. 10-5-2010 Vill. Bodri, Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur Quashed ^ 2. Common question for determination of aforesaid writ petitions is that "whether the Board of Revenue has committed illegality by quashing/ modifying the order passed by the Collector of Stamps?" 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are that the respondent seller has executed sale deed of his land in favour of the respondent purchaser, same was produced for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur and on examination under Section 47-A of the Act, the registering authority was of the view that the rriarket value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been trulyset forth in the instrument. On the basis of prevailing guidelines for such valuation the Sub Registrar, Bilaspur referred the matter to the Collector of Stamps under sub-section (2) of Section 47A of the Act applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and after inspection of spot, passed the order and found that the parties have not properly stamped and not correctlyvalued the property for the purpose of registration. The Collector of Stamps directed for payment of additional stamp charges, same was challenged by the respondent purchaser in appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 47-A (4) of the Act. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Board of Revenue quashed the order passed by the Collector of Stamps and affirmed the valuation made by the parties, especially bn the basis of guidelines issued for valuation of the property for the purpose of registration and stamps. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned, copy of orders of the Collector of Stamps and copies of other documents. 5. Learned Govt. 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 Stamps has enquired into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, has arrived at a finding that the respondents have not properly valued the property subject matter instrument and has directed for proper valuation and payment of stamp charges. The Board of Revenue while ! exercising, the appellate jurisdiction has without any ground for ^ •;.f\ ^?IS&J" /s-^ .<<'• iffliiS interference reversed the reasoned and well-founded order of the Collector of Stamps and thereby committed illegality. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchaser(s), opposed the petitions and submitted that before 6-10-2003, Section 47-A of the Act, as amended by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh by its Act No.8 of 1975 with effect from 15-5- 1975, and adapted under Section 79 of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, was in force and applicable. The Collector of Stamps was under obligation to enquire into the matter and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties pass 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 brder passed by the Collector of Stamps under sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 47-A of the Act was appealable before the Commjssioner 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 Commissibner, sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act was 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. 7. Mr. Somnath Verma further submitted that present appeals have been heard and decided prior to 18-10-2010 by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the first appeal filed before the Board of Revenue was maintainable under the law. Mr. Somnath Verma also submitted that by treating one page letter signed by the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur as - reference under Section 47-A (1 ) of the Act, the Collector of Stamps has committed illegality. The Collector of Stamps was under obligation to provide complete opportunity of hearing and opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties. The Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps w^re under obligation to assess and determine the market value 10 on the basis of Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules'). The Sub-Registrar was not competent to refer the matter without any finding that the respondents have willfully undervalued the subject matter ofthe property and fraudulently undervalued the property forthe purpose of stamp and registration, but without such finding the Sub-Registrar has referred the matter to the Collector of Stamps and thereby committed illegality. Mr. Somnath Verma contended that both the authorities have not followed Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rutes, 2000 (for short 'the Guidelines'). The District Committee had never notified the provisional values after following the procedure prescribed. The Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps have not considered the present surrounding circumstances, situation of the land and other factors, and have assessed the property without following the Guidelines and the Rules, and thereby committed illegality. 8. Mr. Somnath Verma placed reliance in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Mohabir Singh etc. etc. in which while dealing with the provisions of the Guidelines prescribed by the State Government of Punjab for Undervaluation of instrument, the Supreme Court has held that Guidelines prescribed by State for valuation of property on basis of which Registrar satisfies himself as to whether property was valued as per prevailing market rate and ifsuch guidelines prescribe onlyminimum prices, then the State Government is required to revise guidelines. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha andothers in which while dealing with the amended provisions of Section 47A of the Act by the State of Tamil Nadu and the prevailing rules i.e. Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, the Supreme Court has held that guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the true or correct market value and is not sacrosanct even for determining stamp duty, guideline value cannot therefore have any higher worth in ascertaining whether sale has resulted in any offence causing loss to one and gain to other. Q 1 AIR T996 SC 2994 2 2003 AIR SCW 6349 11 ^^ 9. Mr. Somnath Verma also placed reliance in the matter of Trideshwar Dayal and another v. Maheshwar Dayal and others in which the Supreme Court has held that the Collector is authorized to examine the correctness of the valuation of property under Section 47-A of the Act, unless not expressly barred by the law. Learned counsel relied upon the matter ofV.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-lns. & Ors. in which the Supreme Court has held that the basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is willful under valuation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty. Learned counsel further relied upon the matter of Ramesh Chand Bansal and others v. District Magistrate/Collector, Ghaziabad and others in which the Supreme Court has held that supply of biennially statement recording circle rate by Collector does not restrict the Collector to give such rate differently for twoyears. Learned counsel also relied upon the matter of Mohali Club, Mohali v. State of Punjab & Ors. in which the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that the Registrar can refer the matter after registration to the Collector of Stamps, if he has reason to believe that there is deliberate under- valuation and such reference is not a mechanical act but Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding that there is an under-valuation. 10. 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, after registering such instrument, 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. 'AIR 1990 SC 485 4 2009 SAR (Civil) 759 5AIRT999SC2126 6 AIR 2011 Punjab SHaryana 23 12 11.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. 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. 12.At the time of making reference, the Sub-Registrar has considered inadequacy of stamps and valuationon the basis 6f 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 of the Guidelines, the Sub Registrar was of the 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. 13.Both the private respondents have adduced their evidence. The Collector has inspected the spot and the respondents have not valued the property for the purpose of registration in accordance with the Guidelines notified under the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000. 14.As per the affidavits of seller and purchaser, the land in question was not fertile land, not fit for agriculture, far away from residential locality, no municipal revenue approach road was connected to it and the lands were surrounded by the lands of others. There is no facility of drainage, electricity or other facilities. Most of the lands were not fit for agriculture and cultivation. Seller was eager and willing to sell his land, but no purchaser was ready to purchase the land. Finally, the present purchaser became ready to purchase the land. 15.The Collector of Stamps has rejected the aforesaid contentions of the parties (purchaser & seller) and determined market value of the land on i the basis of the points given in Rule 5 of the Rules and the Guidelines notified under the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market ValQe Guidelines Rules, 2000. ^>^' .;,- -^""%, "I T"jii^ .Jfe$^ J^A2;:SS'^" .13 16.For determination of market value of the lands at Village Bilha, the Collector has obtained average value of land on the basis of sale in different years and on the basis of such transaction, the Collector has arrived at finding that average cost of land at Bilha in the year 2004-05 was Rs.4,10,553/- per acre, in the year 2005-06 Rs.3,13,611/- per acre, and in the year 2006-07 Rs.4,05,321/-. Likewise, average cost of land in the year 2005-06 was Rs.7,04,082/- per hectare and in the year 2007-08 was Rs.7,34,681/- per hectare. However, no average value has been assessed for the years 2006-07 and 2008-09. Considering aforesaid market value of previous years and other circumstances required to be considered under Rule 5 of the Rules, the Collector of Stamps has determined market value of the land and directed for payment of additional stamp charges/duties. 17.W.P. (Art. 227) No.2196/2011 is related to the land situate at Village Sendri, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur. While passing order, the Collector of Stamps has not considered the submissions of seller and purchaser. 18.1n W.P. (Art. 227) Nos.1702/2011 & 1703/2011 the property is situate at Chatidih, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur. In addition to the findings recorded by the Collector of Stamps, the Collector of Stamps has held that respondent Atal Shrivastava is a builder and has purchased the property for construction of buildings. Before arriving to such finding the Collector of Stamps was under obligation to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties. 19.Theorder of the Collector and evidence/affidavits of the respondents reveal that the land was not fit ,for agriculture. Virtually, it was deserted land having no facility, far away from residential locality and no approach road. These facts show that virtually, the land was useless for the seller. If the land was virtually useless for the seller having no value, then why the purchaser will purchase