SANTOSH ACHCHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been filed challenging the validity of S.45 A and S.45 B of the Karnataka Stamp Act as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act and for consequential relief.

(2.) IN WP 45953/2001, the prayer is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner on 29.5.2001 which is received by the 3rd respondent.

(3.) IT is also his contention that the market value of a particular property depends upon various factors such as clear and marketable title, location of the property, market condition, economic condition of the seller, the reason for selling the property, etc. The act of the committee constituted under S.45B in recommending to issue a notification by estimating the value of the property in a particular area in general terms without specifying or without determining the value with reference to each property and thereby compelling the party to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the notification is illegal and arbitrary. IT is further stated that the State has a right to collect the stamp duty which is legitimately due to it and if a citizen has under valued the property, there is a mechanism provided under the Act which can be pressed into service whereas under the present scheme, the Committee compels the citizen to pay the pre-determined stamp duty which is on the higher side without appreciating the agreement of the parties and the circumstances. The word 'whichever' appearing in the definition clause of 'market value' is being abused with a view to make unlawful and unreasonable demand of stamp duty and such a process is ultravires of the Stamp Act. The entire process of estimating the market value of the property under S.45 B of the Act and thereafter compelling the citizen to pay the stamp duty alleging that the market value of the property is higher than the consideration indicated in the instrument and accordingly make a demand for payment of additional stamp duty and further, if the demand is not satisfied the process of keeping the registration pending, is beyond the scope and object of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act. The respondents failed to notice that the process of keeping the document pending leads to disastrous consequences and cause irrevocable and irreparable loss to the purchaser which cannot be compensated. Hence, the petitioner though has acquired the property, cannot develop the property unless the documents are registered, as a result, the petitioner is put to irreparable loss and injury. As per S.45 B of the Stamp Act, the Committee constituted will issue notification prescribing the market value on the basis of its findings. The Sub-Registrar insists to pay stamp duty in pursuance of the said notification and the instrument will not be registered unless the stamp duty determined by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is paid. As such, keeping the document pending for registration until determination of the market value is arbitrary and the petitioner therefore, has sought for quashing S.45A and 45B of the Stamp Act.