D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers: "(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),order(s), direction(s) including a writ of mandamus for quashing/setting aside" the Guidelines Register of Estimated Minimum Value of Land/property dated 1.8.2013(hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines Register" in short) allegedly frame under the provisions of Bihar Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules,1995 as amended by Jharkhand (Amendment) Rules 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Amended Rules 1995" in short) by the District Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi as being illegal, arbitrary without any rational basis being violative of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the fact that these 'Guidelines Registers' have been prepared without properly classifying the lands/properties situated in urban area in terms of various rules including Rules 5 and 6 of the aforesaid Rules, 1995 in as much as these Guidelines Registers does not provide any difference in the rates for registration of different shops of commercial use in different floors of the same building and has arbitrarily taken the rates fixed for ground floor of a commercial building as the base rate for all the floors of commercial building for the purpose of registration on account of the fact that in a commercial building the ground floor rate is much higher than the upper floors and as and when the height increase the rate of a commercial building decreases; (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) order(s) direction(s) directing the respondents particularly respondent no. 4 not to refuse registration of deed of conveyance even if sale value stated in the deed is lower than that of the revised Guidelines Register effective from 1.8.2013 because of the said Revised Guidelines Register has been prepared in contravention of the provisions of Rules 1995 inasmuch as at the time of registration of a shops in a commercial building, the cost of land and building is charged separately for determining the cost of commercial shops although cost of land is already included along with the cost of shops in a commercial building in the deed of conveyance for the purpose of registration and as such the Revised Guidelines register imposes payment of double stamp duty for the same land causing huge burden upon the purchaser; (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) order(s) direction(s) directing the respondents to prescribe separate rates schedule for finished and semi finished shops of a commercial building in urban area in as much as there is a huge margin in the cost of purchasing finished and semi finished flats however the purchaser is compelled to pay same registration fees as well as stamp duty at the rate which is applicable for the finished shops in a commercial building as such Revised Guidelines Register imposing same rate for finished and semi finished flat amounts to violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India as the purchaser of finished and semi finished shops in a commercial building altogether constitute different class for which different registration charge is required to be fixed in terms of provisions of Rule, 1995; (D)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)order(s) direction(s) upon the respondents to make provision for categorization in the Revised Guidelines Register for different locations of the same area as in absence of proper categorization of the cost of flats in the same location it has been found that the actual cost of flat is much less than the value fixed in the Revised Guidelines Register and as such, the said Revised Guidelines Register is discriminatory in nature in as much as only two rates have been prescribed in a particular locality of urban area ignoring the fact that different rates should have been prescribed for lanes, sub lanes and the plot located in the area where there is accessibility of only Kachha Road but, unfortunately no such categorization has been made by the respondents in the Revised Guideline Register."
(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that - (I) Very high are the rates of the property prescribed under the Jharkhand Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Amendment Rules,2012; (II) Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no reasonable classification for arriving at minimum value of the market price of the land under the aforesaid Rules, 2012; (III) There is a total arbitrariness on the part of the State Government under the Rules,2012 for arriving at market value of the land in the State of Jharkhand; (IV) By virtue of this Rule,2012, there is an increase by 10% every year, whereas, in relation to that market price is not being enhanced by 10% every year; (V) The object under section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act,1899 has not been achieved by the Rules,2012; (VI) Under the earlier Rules 2009, there was a very valid classification i .e. for every main road, for every bye-lane,for every sub-lane, for every kaccha road of the bye-lane etc. different rates for arriving at market value or arriving at for maximum value were prescribed. This has been done away with, under the Rules 2012; (VII) There is an amendment in the Income Tax Act, especially, under section 43 (CA), which has been brought into effect from 01.04.2014, which is about deemed income etc, which has direct bearing upon the determination of the minimum value of the land in the State of Jharkhand; (VIII) In Punjab and Haryana States in the year 2014-2015 and in the year 2015-2016, especially, for Gurgaon,the rates have been managed as they were, whereas, in the year 2016-2017, these rates have been reduced by 15%. This must be awarded by the State of Jharkhand as far as possible; (IX) In State of Chhastisgarh also, same is the position like Punjab and Haryana States; (X) Determination of minimum value of the land, which is popularly known as "circle rate" should be reduced under the Rules, 2012. n
(3.) We have heard Additional Advocate General,who has submitted that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. If under the Rules 2012, higher is the circle rate, the same can always be challenged by the party, who is selling or purchasing the immovable property in the State of Jharkhand by cogent and convincing evidences to be led before the concerned court or tribunal. In extract, no land can be valued in the High Court in the PIL. The rates prescribed under the Rules 2012 are the guidance given to the public at large and nothing beyond that. It has become fashion for the purchasers of the immovable property that 60% cash is being taken away and only on 40% of the total transaction value, the duties are being paid. Whenever the ratio of the cash is increased, the rate of tax is bound to be increased. This aspect of the matter cannot be decided in so-called Public Interest Litigation. If anybody is aggrieved by the government valuation, remedies are always available under the revenue laws or they can approach lowest available court under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Hence, this Public Interest Litigation may not be entertained by this Court.;