RAMKISHORI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 3390 of 1986, Misc. Petition No. 3521 of 1986 and Misc. Petition 3637 of 1986 also. In all these writ petitions the validity of certain amendments made in the Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 has been challenged. To be specific, the amendments that have been made in S.27 and schedule I of the Act and S.47-A as inserted in the Act by the aforesaid amendment Act No. 8 of 1975 are sought to be declared ultra vires. Section 27 of the Act after its amendment by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 reads as hereunder :

(2.) The facts, in brief, which give rise to the grievance of the petitioners in these four writ petitions are that sale deeds were executed on various dates on payment of stamp duty on the basis of the consideration shown in the said deeds. Subsequently, action was taken under S.47-A as inserted in the Act by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 and the petitioners of these writ petitions were required to show cause as to why the stamp duty may not be determined on the basis of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the various sale-deeds. In some of these cases orders determining stamp duty taking the market value of the property conveyed as the basis have been passed and it seems that in some order is yet to be passed.

(3.) In support of the submission that the amendments referred to above introduced in the Act by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 were ultra vires it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not open to the State Legislature to introduce market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance as the basis for determination of the stamp duty payable. According to learned counsel, the amount or value of the consideration as set out in the deed of conveyance constituted the proper basis for determination of the stamp duty payable inasmuch as various considerations prevailed at the time of execution of the sale-deed and on account of those considerations it often happened that the property which was the subject matter of the conveyance had to be sold for an amount which did not represent the market value of the property. It was urged that in this view of the matter for purposes of determination of stamp duty the amount or value of consideration as shown in the deed of conveyance would alone constitute proper basis for determination of the stamp duty and not the market value of the property conveyed. It appears that in pursuance of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1972 SC 899 amendments similar to the amendments made by M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 were made by various other States also. What has been emphasised by learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases as stated above is that the State Legislature was not competent to incorporate the concept of market value of property which is the subject matter of conveyance as the basis for determination of the stamp duty. In this connection our attention was invited by learned counsel for the petitioners to Entry 63 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which reads as hereunder :