RAMANA M V Vs. COLLECTOR AND DT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired Deputy Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of A.P. He states that prior to his retirement from the Government service the petitioner applied the State Government in the year 1983 for allotment of a residential plot of land for construction of a house. The Government issued orders on 19-2-1987 directing the A.P. Housing Board to sell him a plot measuring 233.33 Sq. Yards at Santoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad at the rate of Rs.600.00 per Sq. Yard. The petitioner felt that the value fixed at Rs. 600.00 per Sq. Yard was excessive. He challenged the fixation of price through Writ Petition No. 9575/87 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 10-6-1991. The Court held that the price fixed at Rs.600.00 per Sq.yard was arbitrary and directed the respondents therein to re-fix the market value in the light of the basic value fixed by the Department of Registration for similar lands in the locality and also in accordance with the observations made in the order. The order of the Court was further clarified by another order on 8-7-1992 by which respondents therein were directed to fix the price as on 19-2-1987. Pursuant to the orders of the Court the Housing Board re-fixed the market value of the land at Rs.400/- per Sq. Yard. The petitioner again filed a Writ petition being W.P.No.12070/93 again challenging the fixation of price at Rs.400.00 per Sq. Yard. In the meantime, the Government of A.P. issued a notice vide letter No. 1266/HG.2/93-II, dated 3-8-93 by which the petitioner was threatened that the allotment made in his favour will be cancelled as the petitioner had failed to pay the land cost and other charges payable by him. He was further informed that he was not entitled to claim the plot as a house had been purchased by his wife. The petitioner again filed another Writ Petition being W.P.No. 13629/93. This Court passed interim orders staying cancellation of allotment. Thereafter both the petitions were heard and disposed of by learned Single Judge by order dated 6-2-1997. The Writ Petition No. 13629/93 was allowed and the proposed action of the respondents to cancel the allotment was quashed. The Writ petition No. 12070/93 was dismissed and it was held that the petitioner was bound to pay the cost of plot @ Rs.400.00 per Sq. Yard and also the other incidental charges that may be payable by him. He was granted three months time from the date of order to make the payment. After this order was passed, the A.P. Housing Board initiated action to collect interest upon the value of Rs.400.00per Sq. yard. The Court had not ordered payment of any interest. Therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being C.C.No. 1214/97 questioning the action of the respondent-Board in seeking to charge interest upon the value of the land. After the contempt was filed the A.P. Housing Board immediately withdrew its demand for interest. Accordingly the contempt case was closed on 17-9-97. The petitioner thereafter ultimately made the payment to the Housing Board and presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad for registration under the Registration Act. The petitioner has made payment of Rs.12,021/- towards stamp duty and registration fee. But, on presentation of the document before the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar referred the document bearing P.No. 719/97 to the Collector and District Registrar, Hyderabad for determination of market value in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In pursuance of said reference the Collector and District Registrar issued notice under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on 24-9-97, The petitioner submitted his explanation on 25-9-97 taking objection that the price of the land was fixed by the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly it was not open to any authority to revise the value of the land and enhance the stamp duty levied. However, the Collector and District Registrar did not find favour with the objection taken by the petitioner and held that he was bound to follow the mandate of Section 47-A. Accordingly he went on and fixed the land value at Rs.1,440.00 per Sq. yard and levied the stamp duty of Rs.42,100.00 and instructed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.30,120.00 towards the deficit stamp duty. This order has been challenged by this writ petition.

(2.) The case revolves around the interpretation given to the Section 47-A. Section 47-A lays down:-

(3.) From perusal of Section 47-A it becomes clear that this Section has been incorporated by the Legislature only to discourage under-valuation of the properties when they are purchased or sold so that the State does not lose its revenue. There cannot be any other intention attributable to Legislature than the one pointed out that in cases when actual prices of the properties which change hands in a transaction are much more than the prices reflected in the instruments there are instances where huge amount as consideration is paid but only a smaller portion of the amount is shown as consideration amount in the instrument. Such situation can be taken care of by Sec. 47-A. Therefore, Section 47-A while referring to the market value of the subject matter it clarifies it with word "truly" and not correctly". If a person genuinely sells his property not on the market value but on a value lesser than market value and reflects the same amount in the sale deed or in any other instrument, in my view Section 47-A shall not be attracted, but it will be difficult in situation where for instance land is sold at a much lower price than the actual market value for purchaser to contend that the value reflected in the instrument was true value. But, there can be instances exceptionally like the present one where there is no doubt that the land was sold at Rs. 400.00 per Sq. yard because the seller is Housing Board and the buyer is the petitioner and the rate has been fixed by the High Court,