STATE OF C.G. Vs. C.G.BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against order dtd. 30/06/2009 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the appeal against order of the Collector, Stamps filed by the purchaser / respondent No.4, has been allowed and the order of the Collector, Stamps has been set aside holding that the market value of the property, as stated in the sale deed is proper and liability of payment of stamp duty is on that value only.

(2.) Land admeasuring 595 sq. mts. situated in Shivnath Complex Vistaar Yojna, Bhilai, ward no.18 was sold in favour of respondent No.4 by respondents 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.8,64,270.00 on 28/07/2003 and also registered. The registering authority having reason to believe that the market value has not been correctly stated and it has been undervalued, referred the matter under Sec. 47-A to the Collector, Stamps for determining the true market value. The Collector issued notice to the parties. The purchaser, upon service of notice appeared before the Collector, Stamps and submitted in writing that he is not willing to file any reply or lead any evidence, though expressed its inability to pay stamp duty on the basis of market value proposed by the Deputy Registrar. Thereafter, the Collector, Stamps proceeded to make its own enquiry and passed order on 31/05/2006 holding that the true market value of the property would be Rs.41,78,100.00 on which, the stamp duty of Rs.4,12,590.00 is payable. This order was assailed by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dtd. 30/06/2009 set aside the order of the Collector, Stamps accepting the market value as stated in the sale deed being Rs.8,64,270.00.

(3.) Assailing correctness and validity of the order, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State would argue that the Board of Revenue has passed the order without there being any valid basis to interfere with the determination of the market value done by the Collector vide order dtd. 31/05/2006. He would submit that despite service of notice, the purchaser did not allow any evidence and he did not file any reply as to why market guideline rates as proposed, be not accepted. Next submission is that the Board of Revenue recorded that there was determination in the report of Patwari and Deputy Registrar and therefore, unless opportunity is not afforded to the parties and dispute resolved, no determination could be made whereas in the present case, the respondent having served with the notice, did not appear and place any material to dispute the market guideline rates. Next submission is that the Board of Revenue, without any basis, came to the conclusion that the guideline rates were not acceptable. According to him, the Board of Revenue passed the order mechanically.