SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. DENSIN P LTD
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-37
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 28,1992

COLLECTOR (MARKET VALUE), REGISTRATION OF STAMPS, TWIN CITIES, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
DENSIN (NEW DELHI) PVT. LIMITED, REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRI N.G. KRISHNAN Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J. - (1.)The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar (the third respondent herein) in computing the value of the house property at 18 times the annual rental value of the building for arriving at the valuation of the said property for the purpose of levying stamp duty and registration charges is proper?
(2.)The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal are briefly as follows; The respondent herein presented a sale deed for registration showing the valuation at Rs.1,09,478/- for a flat purchased by him at Adarshnagar. The plinth area of the flat is 17,140 sq. feet and the monthly rental value for the premises is Rs. 650/- per month which is split up into Rs.400/- towards rent of the building and Rs.250/- for fixtures.
(3.)After registering the document the third appellant arrived at the valuation of the property at Rs. 1,40,400/- and sent the registered document to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as introduced by way of amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh for determining the market value of the property. Aggrieved by that act, the respondent herein filed C.M.A. No. 144 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who has confirmed the order of the Sub-Regis trar. The decision of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was sought to be assailed in Writ Petition No.4955 of 1983. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the burden is on the registering authority to show the particulars and details of valuation; that it is not shown when the building was constructed originally and how the multiplier of 18 is justified in the circumstances; that the multiplier has to be considered on the basis of the date of construction of the building giving the appropriate allowance or reduction for depreciation etc., and as such the valuation adopted by the primary authority is devoid of material and particulars regarding the valuation. Basing on those findings the learned Judge quashed the order of the third appellant. The decision is the subject matter of this appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.