http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHABIR SINGH ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 609        JT 1995 (9)   301  1995 SCALE  (7)278

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH C.A.NOS. 6213-17/90,5425-28/90,5622-25/90, 6218-22/90, 5615- -16/90,1510,11509,11582,11494,11501,11502,11503,11504,11505- 07,11495.500,1151116/954@SLP(C)NOS.14315,13351/90,10144/92,2 0608/93,1704/94,4467/94,3060,5643,19288-90/94,12728-33   AND 12756-61 OF 1990                          O R D E R      Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.      The facts  in C.A.  Nos.5337-41 of  1990 are sufficient for disposal of all these appeals.      The respondents  had entered  into an agreement of sale on March  4, 1989,  to purchase  from the  vendors, Virender Singh and Rupinder Singh, a portion of house (Kothi No. 519) situated in  Model Town,  Jallandhar, of  an  extent  of  20 marlas for  a consideration  valued at  Rs.9,700/- per marla and they appear to have paid as earnes money of Rs.95,000/-. The sale  deed was  required to  be executed  and registered before November  30, 1989.  Few days  prior to the aforesaid date  the   instrument  appears   to  have  been  valued  at Rs.50,000/- and  stamp duty  was paid  and presented for the same. The  Sub-Registrar, Jallandhar, opined that prevailing market value was not less than Rs.15,000/- per marla and, on that basis,  he required the vendee to revise the instrument and fix  the consideration for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges on the revised valuation. He formed his opinion on  the basis  of the  instructions  issued  by  the Government  in  Ex.  PW.  dated  August  04,  1988.  Feeling aggrieved, the  respondents filed  writ petition in the High Court. The  Division Bench  in C.W.P.  No.7360/88  by  order dated May  18, 1990 held that the guide lines cannot control the quasi  judicial  discretion  given  to  the  Registering Authority under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1982 which came  into force  with effect  from August  04,  1982. Section 47A reads thus :      "47-A(1) :  Instrument under  valued how

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    to be  dealt with  - If  the Registering      Officer appointed under the Registration      Act, 1908  (Central Act  No.16 of 1908),      while   registering    any    instrument      relating to the transfer of any property      has reason  to believe that the value of      the property  or consideration,  as  the      case may  be, has  not  been  truly  set      forth in  the instrument,  he may, after      registering such  instrument, prefer the      case    to     the    Collection,    for      determination  of   the  value   of  the      property or  the consideration,  as  the      case may be, and the proper duty payable      thereon.      (2) On  receipt of  reference under sub-      section (1),  the Collector shall, after      giving    the     parties     reasonable      opportunity of  being  heard  and  after      holding an enquiry in such manner as may      be prescribed  by rules  under this Act,      determine the value or consideration and      the duty  as aforesaid and the deficient      amount of duty, if any, shall be payable      by the person liable to pay the duty.      (3) The  Collector may  suo motu,  or on      receipt of  reference from the Inspector      General of Registration or the Registrar      of  a   district,  appointed  under  the      Registration  Act,   1908  (Central  Act      No.16 of 1908) in whose jurisdiction the      property or any portion thereof which is      the subject  matter of the instrument is      situate, shall,  within two  years  from      the  date   of   registration   of   any      instrument, not  already referred to him      under  sub-section   (1)  call  for  and      examine the  instrument for  the purpose      of  satisfying   himself   as   to   the      correctness    of     its    value    or      consideration, as  the case  may be, and      the duty  payable thereon  and if  after      such examination, he has to believe that      the value  of consideration and the duty      as   aforesaid    in   accordance   with      procedure provided  for  in  sub-section      (2) and the deficient amount of duty, if      any, shall  be  payable  by  the  person      liable to pay the duty.      (4) Any  person aggrieved by an order of      the Collector  under sub-section  (2) or      sub-section (3)  may, within thirty days      from the  date of  that order, prefer an      appeal before the District Judge and all      such appeals shall be heard and disposed      of in  such manner  as may be prescribed      by rules made under this Act.      Explanation:- For  the purpose  of  this      section, value  of any property shall be      estimated to  be the  price which in the      opinion  of   the   Collector   or   the      appellate authority, as the case may be,      such property  would  have  fetched,  if      sold in  the open  market on the date of      execution of  the instrument relating to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    the transfer of such property."      The relevant  portion of  the guidelines      are:-      "These floor  process will  act only  as      guidelines to the Sub-Registrars and the      Sub-Registrar is  free to invoke Section      47-A if he is quasi-judicially satisfied      that the  value of  the  property  in  a      particular transaction  is  higher  then      the prescribed  rate and has not been so      rate etc.  in that  document.  In  other      words,  these   process  are  only,  the      minimum prices prescribed."      Sub-section (1) of Section 47A empowers the Registering Officer, while  Registering any  instrument relating  to the transfer of  any property, if he has reasons to believe that the value  of the property or consideration, as the case may be, has  not been  truly set  forth in the instrument, after registering such  instrument,  to  refer  the  same  to  the Collector for  determination of the value of the property or the consideration,  as the  case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.  It would,  therefore, be  clear  that  the Registering Authority  has to  satisfy himself that value of the property  or the consideration for it has not been truly set forth  in the instrument. He may make a reference to the Collector in  accordance with  the provisions of sub-section (2) of  Section 47A. Before making reference, he is required to register the document and he is not empowered to withhold the registration.  Such a  registration, of  course, will be subject to  the  determination  of  the  true  market  value prevailing in the locality though the value mentioned in the instrument for  such registration  under sub-section  (1) of Section 47A was not conclusive.      The guidelines  provided by  the State would only serve as prima  facie material  available before  the  Registering Authority to  alert him  regarding the  value. It  is common knowledge that  the value  of the property varies from place to place  or even  from locality  to locality  in  the  same place. No  absolute higher  or minimum  value  can  be  pre- determined. It  would depend  on prevailing  prices  in  the locality in  which the  land covered  by the  instrument  is situated. It will be only on objective satisfaction that the Authority  has   to  reach  a  reasonable  belief  that  the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued or consideration mentioned when it is presented  for registration.  The ultimate decision would be with  the Collector  subject to the decision on an appeal before the  District Court as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 47A.      It would  thus be  seen that  the aforesaid  guidelines would inhibit  the Registering  Authority  to  exercise  his quasi-judicial  satisfaction   of  the  true  value  of  the property  or   consideration  reflected  in  the  instrument presented  before   him  for   registration.  The  statutory language  clearly   indicates  that  as  and  when  such  an instrument is  presented for registration, the sub-Registrar is required  to  satisfy  himself,  before  registering  the document, whether  true price is reflected in the instrument as it  prevails in  the locality.  If he is so satisfied, he registers the  document. If  he is  not satisfied  that  the market value  or the  consideration has been truly set forth in the  instrument, subject  to his  making reference  under Sub-section (1)  of Section  47A, he registers the document. Thereafter, he  should make a reference to the Collector for action  under  sub-section  (2)  and  (3)  of  Section  47A.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Accordingly, we hold that the offending instructions are not consistent with  sub-section (1)  of Section  47A. It would, therefore, be  open to  the State  Government to  revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with law.      The appeals  are accordingly  disposed of.  No  costs.