http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT.PRAKASHWATI

       Vs.

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

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 657        JT 1996 (6)   190  1996 SCALE  (5)73

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 Mehrotra, Adv. for P.K.Jain, Adv. for the appellant A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Smt. Prakashwati V. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others                       J U D G M E N T 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. yards and the covered area 56.84 sq. yards. It had two room, 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  locality 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 wide his order dated October 25, 1993 determined the value of the house at  Rs.4,70,116.80 paise,  holding that  stamp duty to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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  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  challenge  before  the  High  Court unsuccessfully.      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-sections (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 341 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. Noticeable  the house  is built  on a very small area i.e  68.84 sq  yards  only  in  a  town  which  is  not 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  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. 480/- 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 lack, ostensibly on the basis that  the average  cost of construction of building in the year  1992 was   about Rs. 400/- per sq yards, inclusive of the land cost. This figures 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  on 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, but confining

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

the end result to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, when  the valuation  under Section  341 of  the  Stamp Rules.           For the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed with costs.