ARUNBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Special Civil Applications were taken up together as the subject -matter of challenge in all these applications is the legality and validity of a Circular dated 9th May 2007 issued by the Respondent No. 2 purporting to be as part of simplification of the Rule 45[1] of Registration ,viz. the Gujarat Registration Rules, 1970.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to the Circular dated 9th May 2007 which is quoted below: - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... "CIRCULAR:

(3.) MR . P.K. Jani, the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Parikh and has submitted that the object of the above Circular is to simplify the existing Rule 45 of the Registration Rules for the quick disposal of the disputes relating to the deficit stamp duty payable for the various registrable deeds which results in delayed registration. Mr. Jani contends that although the Circular was not issued under the rule making power of either the Registration Act or the Stamp Act, such Circular has, in no way, taken away any of the rights conferred upon the citizens under any law for the time being. Mr. Jani contends that when a document is presented for registration, if the registering officer accepts the document keeping the dispute about valuation of the property alive and grants a receipt acknowledging presentation of the document for registration, the person presenting the document for registration as well as the beneficiary under the transaction will lose interest in the matter of settling the dispute of valuation as well as the payment of the consequent additional stamp duty to the competent authority. According to Mr. Jani, on the other hand, if the registering officer finds that the consideration set forth in the document is, on the face of it, less than the market value reflected from the valuation of the land prepared area -wise by the State which is popularly called jantri -value, by the notification impugned, he has been given discretion not to accept such presentation and to ask the person presenting the document to get the proper valuation done by a competent person, namely, the Deputy Collector. According to Mr. Jani, the Deputy Collector generally decides such question of valuation and the stamp duty payable within 15 days and thus, the parties to the transaction will not suffer any prejudice, because the document is required to be presented for registration within 4 months from the date of the execution in accordance with law. According to Mr. Jani, the procedure prescribed in the impugned Circular does not cause any prejudice to the person presenting the document for registration or to the parties to the transaction. Mr. Jani, by referring to interim order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, contended that while refusing to grant interim order in one of these matters, his above contention has been accepted by the Division Bench and the prayer for temporary injunction sought in the said matter was rejected. Mr. Jani, therefore, prays that we should not interfere with the above Circular issued for smooth functioning of the registration of the document.