Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P  INSC 772
(9 July 1996)
Mohan Punchhi, Sujata V. Manohar Punchhi, J.
9TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:
Mr.Justice M.M. Punchhi Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar Aseem Mehtrotra,
Adv. for P.K. Jain, Adv. for the appellant A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the
J U D
G M E N T
following Judgment of the court was delivered;
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition
of the appellant, leaving the orders dated September 13, 1994 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. uninterferred with.
12, 1992, the appellant, for a sum of Rs.70,000/- purchased a house in Saharanpur,
a town in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the plot of which measured 66.84 sq.
years and the covered area 56.84 sq. yards. It had two rooms and a living room,
besides other necessities such as toilet, bathroom and a kitchen. Facilities of
water and electricity were also available. It was situated in a locality close
to a decent locally going by the name Samrat Vikram Colony. According to the
registering Authority the stamp paid on the minimum consideration of Rs.
71.500/- determinable under Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules was inadequate and
under - paid. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps became seisen of
the matter under Section 47-A of the stamp Act and vide his order dated October
25, 1993 determined the value of the house at Rs.4,70,166.80 paise holding that
stamp duty to the extent of Rs.57,852.50 paise had been evaded, which he
ordered the appellant to pay, as well as to suffer payment of penalty to pay,
as well as to suffer payment of penalty to the extent of Rs. 12,147.50 paise.
On challenging this order in revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority the first respondent, the market value of the house was reduced to
Rs.2.5 lacs and on the basis of this altered valuation, deficiency in stamp
duty was worked out at Rs. 25,880/- setting aside the penalty. This order was
put to challenged before the High Court unsuccessfully.
the High Court as also here, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that since
sufficient guidelines have not been provided in section 47-A of the Act, the
provision was unworkable. The High Court repelled the contention holding that a
procedure was prescribed under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 47-A which
requires to be adopted for determining market value of the property which has
not been truly set-forth in the document in question.
manner of the inquiry, as required to be held, is appropriately given therein.
According to the High Court the procedure postulated was observed in the
instant case and nothing further was required to be done. Rule 351 of the U.P.
Stamp Rule 1942 providing for determination of the minimum market value, also subserving
the purpose of Section 47-A of the Act was explained to say that the minimum
market value determinable was not the end of the matter and value could be
determined at a figure higher than that if warranted.
have carefully examined the orders of the first respondent, Noticeably the
house is built on a very small area i.e. 68.84 sq. yards only in a town which
is not a metropolis. Presumably the smallness of the area would not suggest the
same by itself to be a costly property or be situated in a prestigious or posh
locality, where the upper classes would rub shoulders to acquire it. Secondly, its
being situated in an area which is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said to be a
decent locality, where people of high income group reside, does not by itself
make it a part thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of closeness by
itself would cast any reflection on the price of property in question. Seemingly,
influenced by the factor of the close proximity of Samrat Vikram Colony, the
Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, for one does not know how, determined the
monthly rental value of the property at Rs.1500/- per mensem and worked out the
price of the house on that basis. Despite that the Tehsildar at a subsequent
stage reported that the annual rental value of the house was Rs. 1200/- per
annum, whereas for house tax purpose it was recorded as Rs. 840/- per annum. the
first respondent ignoring the same worked out the monthly rental of the
property at Rs. 830/- per mensem and its value at Rs. 2.5 lacs, ostensibly on
the basis that the average cost of construction of building in the year 1992
was about Rs.400/- per sq. years, inclusive of the land cost. This figure too
was arrived at, one knows not from where without determining the age of the
building, the quality of construction and citing appropriate instances. The
approach of the authorities, to say the least, was highly vain, casual and
unsatisfactory and dehors any constructive material on the basis of which one
could have said that the decision arrived at by the first respondent was fair
and reasonable. We cannot approve of such an assumptive posture of the
respondent in treating the appellant as an evader.
must, therefore, upset the impugned order of the first respondent and the
proceedings for the supposed deficient payment of stamp duty, but confining the
end result to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, when the
valuation fixed is at least not below the minimum prescribed under Section 341
of the Stamp Rules.
the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed with costs.