Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P  INSC 787
(9 July 1996)
M.M.Punchhi, M.M.Manohar Sujata V. (J) Punchhi, J.
1996 SCC (4) 657 JT 1996 (6) 190 1996 SCALE (5)73
9TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:
Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar Aseem Mehrotra,
Adv. for P.K. Jain, Adv. for the appellant A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
V. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others
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.
On May 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.yards and the covered
area 56.84 sq. yards. It had two room, 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 locality going by the name Samrat Vikram Colony.
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
the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps became seisen of the matter under Section
47-A of the Stamp Act and wide his order dated October 25, 1993 determined the
value of the house at Rs.4,70,116.80 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 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.
order was put to challenge 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-sections (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. The 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 341 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. Noticeable the
house is built on a very small area i.e 68.84 sq yards only in a town which is
not 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 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.
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.480/- 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 lack, ostensibly on the basis that the average cost of construction of building
in the year 1992 was about Rs.400/- per sq yards, inclusive of the land cost.
This figures 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 on 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. We must therefore, upset the
impugned order of the first respondent and the proceedings for the supposed
deficient payment of stamp, but confining the end result to the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, when the valuation under Section 341 of the
the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed with costs.