(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These review petitions arise out of common background and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We notice that the petitioners have in their Review Petitions prayed for condonation of delay. Delay occurred mainly due to the reason that the petitioners first approached the Supreme Court against the judgment in References and withdrew their appeals to file Review Petitions. Delay is thus sufficiently explained. The same is therefore condoned.
3. We may notice brief facts at the outset as emerging from Stamp Reference No.1/2010. The said reference was made under section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act') at the instance one Chitvan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., purchaser of non-agricultural land admeasuirng 24989 sq. mtrs. of land situated in sim of village Bopal, District: Ahmedabad. The said purchaser of the land and the land owners executed sale deed on 31.12.2005 with respect to the said land. The sale deed recorded consideration of Rs.19,99,120/-. When this document was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad (Memnagar) for registration on 31.12.2005, the Sub-Registrar informed the purchaser in writing that he has received document for registration which records sale consideration of Rs.19,99,120/-. However, as per the Jantri rates for the area in question, the land would be valued at Rs.3,49,84,600/-. The document is therefore deficiently stamped to the extent of Rs.27,70,767/-. The purchaser was put to notice that if the purchaser was prepared to pay such deficient stamp duty, same may be done within 30 days, upon which the document can be returned after registration. It was also conveyed that if no stamp duty was paid within such time, the document shall be sent to the Deputy Collector for ascertaining the market value of the land in terms of section 32A of the Act.
3.1 In response to such communication, the purchaser did not pay the differential stamp duty. The Sub-Registrar, therefore, forwarded the document to the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation for ascertaining the value of the land. The Deputy Collector issued a notice to the purchaser on 14.10.2008 indicting that he proposed to ascertain the value on the basis of the Government fixed Jantri rates. If the purchaser wished to dispute this valuation and establish that sale consideration reflected the correct value of the property, the purchaser may produce necessary evidence, such as, order passed by the Collector for converting the land into NA use, if any construction is carried out on the land, the plans thereof, if any other charge was existing on the land, the details thereof, and any other facts which may have bearing on valuation of the property. The purchaser was also given an opportunity to make submissions. The Deputy Collector also conveyed that if no evidence was shown to the contrary, tentatively assessed value of the property on the basis of Jantri rates would be finally accepted and on which basis the purchaser shall have to pay the deficient stamp duty of Rs.27,70,767/- and fine. In response to such notice, the purchaser produced no evidence before the Deputy Collector.
3.2 The Deputy Collector, therefore, proceeded to pass order dated 11.11.2008. He assessed the value of the property at Rs.3,49,84,600/- on the basis of Jantri rates and demanded deficient stamp duty of Rs.27,70,767/- and fine of Rs.250/-.
3.3 The purchaser challenged the decision of the Deputy Collector before the Controlling Revenue Authority. However, such appeal was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law and the same was, therefore, not entertained. The purchaser thereupon approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No.12344/2009. The High Court, by order dated 26.11.09, remitted the proceedings back to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for decision on merits.
3.4 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority thereupon passed order dated 30th June 2010, and rejected the appeal of the purchaser. Dissatisfied by such order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the purchaser sought reference before the High Court under section 54(1A) of the said Act. Such reference being Reference No.1/10 came to be dismissed by the High Court along with other references by a common judgment dated 2.8.2011.While doing so, it was observed as under:
"13.
We see absolutely no reason to interfere. The authorities below adopted the prevailing Jantri rates for the purpose of valuation of the property after giving opportunity to the purchaser to produce rebuttal evidence. As already noted, before the Deputy Collector no such evidence was produced. Even before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, except for stating that the agreement to sale reflected the correct sale consideration, no further evidence was produced. The contention that the Deputy Collector proceeded to adopt Jantri rates for valuation without notice is also not tenable. As noted, the purchaser was informed that the tentative calculation of deficient stamp is on the basis of Jantri rates. He had also given opportunity to produce any evidence to discard such valuation. Contention that in the vicinity, other documents were registered at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. also cannot be accepted. Firstly, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has recorded that such documents are also under revision under Section 53A of the Act. Section 53A of the Act empowers the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to suo-motu examine an order of the Collector with respect to stamp duty and to pass order of recovery of deficient stamp duty if he finds that any instrument carries less duty than leviable. Besides we may also notice that these documents were executed in the year 1997, 2001 and 2002 meaning several years before the present purchaser's documents were executed. It was not seriously contended before us that the Jantri rates adopted were for the year 2005 and not of year 2008. Facts in all References are similar. We have not separately noted these facts here."
Against the decision of the High Court, the purchaser approached the Apex Court. SLP was disposed of by order dated 4.1.2012 as under:
"Delay condoned.
After having argued the matter for sometime, learned senor counsel for petitioner sought permission to withdraw these petitions with liberty to file an appropriate Review Petition in the High Court. Prayer accepted.
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn."
Thereupon, the purchaser has filed review petitions which came to be heard on 13th April 2012.
4. Appearing for the purchaser, learned counsel Shri B.S.Patel submitted that the Court has committed an apparent error in dismissing the references of the purchaser. Counsel submitted that the Stamp Valuation Authorities did not supply the Jantri rates along with the notice. The purchaser was thus completely in dark about the basis for ascertaining the market value of the land. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (2006) 12 GHJ 527 and in the case of Vinaybhai P. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2006)12 GHJ
533. 4.1 Counsel submitted that the Stamp Valuation Authorities committed serious error in placing reliance solely on the Jantri rates ignoring the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gorwa Vibhag Co-op. Housing Societies Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1993(1) GLH 571 and the procedure provided under rule 8 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules. He submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Gorwa Vibhag Coop. Housing Society (supra) was brought to the notice of the Court when the References were disposed of. However, the court failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thakur Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India, (2010) 3 SCC 794 to contend that Jantri rate cannot be the sole basis for deciding the market value.
4.2 Counsel further submitted that the Stamp Valuation Authorities failed to give reasonable opportunity to the purchaser to defend himself. He submitted that the procedure laid down in the rules was not followed.
4.3 Counsel lastly contended that the agreement to sell in the present case was executed much earlier. Even possession of the the land by way of part performance was handed over. The sale deed may have been executed later, and therefore, the Stamp Duty Authorities could not have applied the Jantri rates prevailing on the date of the sale. He further submitted that subsequently also, the Stamp Duty Authorities had valued the land in the same area at a lower rate.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, Shri Prakash Jani, appearing for the respondents opposed the petitions contending that review petitions are not maintainable. No provision for review is made under the Act. He further submitted that at the time of disposing of the Stamp References, all contentions were taken into account. Even on merits, therefore, no case for review is made out.
5.1 Drawing our attention to the case of Gorwa Vibhag Coop. Society (supra), he submitted that Jantri rates have special significance for the purpose of deciding the market value of the land for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty and would therefore be relevant factor to be taken into account. Drawing our attention to section 2(na) of the said Act, counsel submitted that "market value" in relation to any property which is the subject matter of an instrument would mean the price which such property would have fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument. He, therefore, submitted that the Stamp Authorities, therefore, were justified in adopting the Jantri rates prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed on its presentation for registration.
5.2 Counsel submitted that in the cases of Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma (supra) and Vinaybhai P. Patel (supra) the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gorwa Vibhag Co.op Housing Society (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
5.3 Counsel lastly submitted that the Deputy Collector's order accepting Rs.400 per sq. meter as value of the land for stamp duty was taken in suo motu revision and set aside. The petitioners, therefore, cannot place reliance on such order of the Deputy Collector.
6. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties, we may first deal with the question of maintainability of the review petitions.
7. It is by now well settled that a Court or a Tribunal has no inherent right of substantive review of its decision on merits. In other words, unless the statute explicitly or by necessary implication vests the Court or the Tribunal with the power of view, such court or the Tribunal once having rendered its decision on merit cannot review the same. It is equally settled that even without any express powers, the court would have power of procedural review and correct its own error which is merely procedural or technical in nature. In this regard we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Weaving Mills Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 777. In the said decision, in the context of the power of the Labour Court to review its own decision, the Apex court observed as under:
"19.
Applying these principles it is apparent that where a Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or the quasi judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the Court or quasi judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure followed by the Court or the quasi judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be re-heard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (supra), it was held that once it is established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be re-heard and decided again."
8. Bearing in mind the above judicial principles, if we refer to the case on hand, we find that the decision which the petitioner seeks to review was rendered by the High Court on references made under section 54(1A) of the said Act. The said provision falls under Chapter VI under the heading of "Reference and Revision". Section 54 pertains to statement of case by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to High Court. Under section 53 and 53A of the said Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority enjoys appellate as well as suo motu revisional powers against the orders of the Collector with respect to stamp duty valuation. Sub-section (1) of section 54 authorizes the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make a reference to the High Court. Sub-section (1A) of section 54 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any person aggrieved by the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 53 regarding the amount of duty may require the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall, within ninety days of receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court. Section 55 of the said Act pertains to power of the High Court to call for further particulars as to the case. Importantly, section 56 of the Act lays down the procedure in disposing of the case stated and reads as under:
"56.
Procedure in disposing of case stated:
The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the question raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded.
The High Court shall send a copy of its judgment under the seal of Court and the signature of Registrar to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the amount of duty chargeable on the instrument in respect of which the reference was made shall be in accordance with such judgment."
The above are the relevant provisions touching the High Court's powers on reference under the said Act. No provision has been made under the said Act to enable the High Court to review its own decision on merits once the same is rendered on a reference under section 54 of the said Act. Not only expressly, but even by necessary implication no such review power can be read into the provisions. It thus clearly emerges that under the said Act, High Court does not have power of substantive review of its decision once a reference is disposed of on merits. Despite our such conclusion, we have examined the contentions of the petitioners on merits since detailed submissions were made before us by the counsel.
9. At the outset, we may record that almost all contentions which are pressed before us in the present review petitions were also made while the references were disposed of. The contention of the counsel that Jantri rates were not provided to the petitioners is contrary to the material on record. We may recall that upon the sale deeds being presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad (Memnagar) on 31.12.2005 issued a notice to the purchaser indicating that the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed does not match with the valuation of the land as per the Jantri rates prevailing and that, therefore, he has prima facie reason to believe that the document was insufficiently stamped. Along with such notice itself, he had attached the detailed working out of the valuation of amount of Rs.3,49,84,600/- on the basis of the Jantri rates. In such details provided by him, he had indicated that total area of land was 24989 sq. meters and the Jantri rate prevailing was Rs.1400/- per sq. meters and that is how he arrived at the above-mentioned valuation of the land.
10. It would be incorrect to hold that the Stamp Valuation Authorities mechanically proceeded to finalise the value of the land on the basis of jantri rates or while doing so, ignored the rules or that there was any failure on their part to afford reasonable opportunity to the purchaser. We may recall that the purchaser was given an opportunity to pay up the deficient stamp duty as per the prevailing Jantri rates, failing which the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad referred the matter to the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation for ascertainment of the market value of the land. The Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, issued a separate notice to the purchaser on 14.10.08 and indicated that he proposed to ascertain the value of the land on the basis of Government fixed Jantri rates and if purchaser wished to dispute such valuation, he should present necessary evidence such as the order passed by the Collector for converting the land into NA use, construction, if any, was carried out on the land, plans thereof, if any charge is in existence over the land, the details thereof, and any other facts which may have bearing on the valuation of the property. Thus the Deputy Collector gave ample opportunity to the purchaser to dispute the Government Jantri rates in general or in his specific case. If there were special circumstances which would diminish the value of the land, such as existence of charges or any such relevant factors, the purchaser was given an opportunity to produce the evidence on record. Admittedly, the purchaser produced no material before the Deputy Collector. In fact, the purchaser did not even respond to the notice issued by the Deputy Collector. In that view of the matter, if the Deputy Collector proceeded to finalise the valuation of the land on the basis of Jantri rates, it cannot be said that he did not follow the rules or that no proper opportunity was given to the purchaser or that the entire valuation was based solely on Jantri rates ignoring other relevant factors.
11. In the case of Gorwa Vibhag Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (supra), the background leading upto fixation of the Government Jantri rates, its utility and the purpose have been traced. In para 16 of the decision, it was noticed that such Jantri rates are supposed to be the minimum value which would conservatively estimate the market value and would become the norm that would be given to registering officers. The Government Jantri rates are thus relevant for ascertaining the market value of the land. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the Government Jantri rates are irrelevant for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land. The Deputy Collector before taking a final decision had given an opportunity to the purchaser to produce relevant material and special circumstances which would show that Jantri rates should not form the basis for charging stamp duty in the present case. The purchaser totally failed to avail of such opportunity. If, therefore, the Deputy Collector proceeded to value the land on the basis of Jantri rates, it cannot be stated that such decision was in breach of rule 8 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules or the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gorwa Vibhag Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd.(supra).
12. In the case of Thakur Kuldeep Singh (supra) in the context of the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, the Apex Court observed that the 'circle rates' (which in our State is referred to as 'jantri rates') cannot be the sole basis on which the market value of the land for the purpose of compensation can be ascertained. This was a case based on entirely different facts.
13. With respect to the contention that agreement to sell was executed way back on 13.1.94 and after that by way of part performance, possession of the land was also handed over to the purchaser and that therefore, the Jantri rates prevailing as on the date of execution of sale deed could not have been adopted suffers from various misconceptions. Firstly, section 2(na) of the said Act provides for deeming fiction in case of 'market value' and provides that 'market value' in relation to any property which is subject matter of instrument means the price which such property would have fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument. Thus, statutorily market value prevailing on the date of execution of such instrument had to be adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. Further, the purchaser never placed these materials before the Deputy Collector when the question of valuation was examined. Therefore, even if the case of the purchaser was that due to certain special factors, Jantri rates prevailing on the date of execution of the deed would not reflect the correct market value, such special factors were never presented before the Deputy Collector. The assertion that possession of the property was handed over to the purchaser by way of part performance is also not clearly emerging from the record. In the agreement to sell dated 31.1.94, it is clearly recorded that it is an agreement without handing over the possession of the land. In the sale deed dated 31.12.05, in para 11, it is stated that possession of the land was previously handed over to the purchaser by way of part performance. However, in the later portion, the same document also records that the possession was being handed over on the date of execution of the deed. Two things emerge from this. Firstly, sale deed itself is not clear whether possession was handed over previously or only on the date of execution of the sale deed. Secondly, even if the possession was handed over earlier, when it was done is not emerging from the record. The agreement to sell was admittedly without possession. After such agreement to sell, but before before the sale deed was executed, when the possession was handed over is not stated anywhere. Considering these factors, we do not find any error in the Stamp Valuation Authorities adopting the Jantri rates prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed for the purpose of stamp valuation.
14. The contention that similarly situated other lands were valued at Rs.400 per sq. meter was advanced even on the earlier occasion and this Court while disposing the references had turned down the same. Learned G.P. pointed out that such orders were taken in suo motu revision and set aside.
15. In the result, we do not find any reason to review our earlier order. These petitions are therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (Ms.Harsha Devani, J.) (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) (vjn) Top