CHAMPAKLAL J GADANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As respondent No X Sub-Registrar of Assurances Ahmedabad is not returning the Sale-Deed presented by the petitioner for registration even though all formalities of registration are over the petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to return his document and further direct both the respondents to return all those documents which are retired by the registering officers after registration to their respective owners Respondent No. 2 has withheld the document of the petitioner for the purpose of referring it to the Collector of the District for determination of the true market value of the property since he believes that the market value referred in the document is very much undervalued.

(2.) Mr. Thakkar learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once the document is registered as per sec. 61(2) of the Registration Act 1908 the said document has to be returned to the person who presented the same for registration. He further submitted that the registering officer has no authority after registration of the document to refer the same to a Collector for determination of true market value of the property which is the subject matter of the document. He submitted that the Registration Act is a Central Act while the Bombay Stamp Act i. e. Act No. LX of 1958 which authorises the Registering Officer to refer the document to the Collector of the District is a State LegislationS and as there is a conflict between these two Acts the Central Act must prevail. He next contended that in Special Civil Application No. 6262 of 1984 wherein vires of sec 32 of the Bombay Stamp Act his been challenged a Bench of our High Court has issued rule and granted ad-interim relief starting operation of that section. Hence respondent No. 2 is not likely to return the document till that petition is decided. That would mean that the petitioner has to wait for as uareasonably long time and he will not be able to raise a loan from respondent No. 3 for constructing his house. He further submitted that if respondent No. 2 can retain a copy of his document and if it is ultimately found that the market value of the property has not been correctly stated in the documents the Collector can recover the duty as arrear of land revenue and that the State mill rot be adversely affected if the document is returned to him new.

(3.) Mr. Thakkar is right in his contention that if there in a conflict between a Central Act and the said Legislation on that subject the Central Act must prevail. The question that arises for consideration is whether there is any conflict between the Registration Act and the Bombay Stamp Act as contended by Mr. Thakkar. In this case the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the document is undervalued. Relying upon the provisions of Sec. 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act the registering authority proposes to refer the document to the concerned Collector for determination of the true market value of the property. Section 32-A reads as follows: