http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. PRAKASHWATI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY,BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. A

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1996

BENCH: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M. Punchhi               Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar Aseem Mehtrotra,  Adv. for P.K. Jain, Adv. for the appellant A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.                      J U D G E M E N T      The following Judgment of the court was delivered; Punchhi, J.      A learned  Single Judge  of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the  writ petition  of the  appellant, leaving the orders dated  September 13, 1994 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,  Board  of  Revenue,  U.P.  uninterferred with.      On May  12, 1992,  the appellant,  for  a  sum  of  Rs. 70,000/- purchased  a house  in Saharanpur,  a town  in  the State of  Uttar Pradesh,   the  plot of which measured 66.84 sq. years  and the covered area 56.84 sq. yards.  It had two rooms and  a living  room, besides other necessities such as toilet, bathroom  and a  kitchen.   Facilities  of water and electricity were  also available.   It  was  situated  in  a locality close  to a decent locally going by the name Samrat Vikram Colony.   According  to the registering Authority the stamp paid  on the  minimum consideration  of  Rs.  71.500/- determinable  under   Rule  341   of  the  Stamp  Rules  was inadequate and  under -  paid.    Thereupon,  the  Assistant Commissioner, Stamps  became  seisen  of  the  matter  under Section 47-A  of the  stamp Act  and vide  his  order  dated October 25,  1993 determined  the value  of the house at Rs. 4,70,166.80 paise  holding that  stamp duty to the extent of Rs.57,852.50 paise  had been  evaded, which  he ordered  the appellant to pay, as well as to suffer payment of penalty to pay, as  well as  to suffer payment of penalty to the extent of Rs.  12,147.50 paise.    On  challenging  this  order  in revision before  the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority the first respondent,  the market value of the house was reduced to Rs.2.5  lacs and  on the basis of this altered valuation, deficiency in  stamp duty  was worked  out at  Rs.  25,880/- setting aside the penalty.  This order was put to challenged before the High Court unsuccessfully.

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

    Before the  High Court  as also  here, it  was urged on behalf of  the appellant  that since  sufficient  guidelines have not  been provided  in section  47-A of  the  Act,  the provision was  unworkable.   The  High  Court  repelled  the contention holding  that a  procedure was  prescribed  under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 47-A which requires to be adopted for  determining market  value of the property which has not  been truly  set-forth in  the document in question. The manner  of the  inquiry, as  required  to  be  held,  is appropriately given  therein.   According to  the High Court the procedure  postulated was  observed in  the instant case and nothing  further was  required to  be done.  Rule 351 of the U.P.  Stamp Rule 1942 providing for determination of the minimum market value, also subserving the purpose of Section 47-A of the Act was explained to say that the minimum market value determinable  was not  the end of the matter and value could  be  determined  at  a  figure  higher  than  that  if warranted.      We have  carefully examined  the orders  of  the  first respondent,   Noticeably the  house is built on a very small area i.e.  68.84 sq.  yards only  in a  town which  is not a metropolis.   Presumably the smallness of the area would not suggest the  same by  itself to  be a  costly property or be situated in  a prestigious or posh locality, where the upper classes would  rub shoulders  to acquire  it.  Secondly, its being situated  in an  area which  is close to Samrat Vikram Colony, said  to be  a decent locality, where people of high income group  reside, does  not by  itself make  it  a  part thereof.   We  are  doubtful  whether  the  said  factum  of closeness by  itself would  cast any reflection on the price of property  in question.    Seemingly,  influenced  by  the factor of  the close  proximity of Samrat Vikram Colony, the Assistant Commissioner,  Stamps, for  one does not know how, determined the  monthly rental  value of the property at Rs. 1500/- per  mensem and  worked out the price of the house on that basis.   Despite  that the  Tehsildar at  a  subsequent stage reported  that the  annual   rental value of the house was Rs.  1200/- per  annum, whereas for house tax purpose it was recorded  as Rs.  840/- per annum.  the first respondent ignoring the  same worked  out the  monthly  rental  of  the property at  Rs. 830/-  per mensem  and its value at Rs. 2.5 lacs, ostensibly  on the  basis that  the  average  cost  of construction of  building in  the year  1992 was  about  Rs. 400/- per  sq. years,  inclusive of  the land  cost.    This figure too was arrived at, one knows not from where  without determining  the   age  of  the  building,  the  quality  of construction and citing appropriate instances.  The approach of the  authorities, to  say the  least,  was  highly  vain, casual  and   unsatisfactory  and  dehors  any  constructive material on  the basis of which one could have said that the decision arrived  at by  the first  respondent was  fair and reasonable.  We cannot approve of such an assumptive posture of the  respondent in  treating the  appellant as an evader. We must,  therefore, upset  the impugned  order of the first respondent and  the proceedings  for the  supposed deficient payment of  stamp duty,  but confining the end result to the facts and  circumstances of  the instant  case,    when  the valuation fixed is at least not below the minimum prescribed under Section 341 of the Stamp Rules.      For the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed with costs.