IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 26418/2012(GM-ST/RN) AND WRIT PETITION Nos.49218-221/2012 Between:
Sri A.N. Nagesh S/o. A.K. Narayan Aged about 40 years R/at No.7/2, Haudin Road Bangalore – 560 042. …Petitioner (By Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, Advocate) And:
1. The Regional Commissioner Bangalore Division Bangalore.
2. District Registrar (Detection of Under Valuation) of Stamps No.26, New No.2722, 4th Block 12th Main, Jayanagar Bangalore – 560 011.
3. The Sub Registrar Kengeri Bangalore. …Respondents (By Sri N. Dinesh Rao, AAG a/w Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA for R1 to R3 ) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by R2 document No.6727/98-99 dated 25.01.06 vide Annx-D and document No.6746/98-99 dated 25.01.06 vide Annx-D1 document No.6779/98-99 dated 25.01.06 vide Annx-D2 document No.6624/98-99 dated 25.01.06 vide Annx-D3 document No.6640/98-99 dated 25.01.06 at Annx-D4, quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2012 passed by R1 vide Annexure-J and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 – District Registrar dated 25.01.2006 (Annexures D, D1, D2, D3 and D4) and the order passed by respondent No.1 – the Regional Commissioner dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure-J).
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has presented the instrument of sale deeds dated 11.11.1998, 09.11.1998, 10.11.1998 and 07.11.1998 covering the properties measuring 02 acres 0.25 gunts and sale deed dated 06.11.1998 covering the property measuring 02 acre 0.30 guntas in survey number 15/3A situated at Manavarthakaval, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for registration before the respondent No.3. Along with instrument, the petitioner has enclosed stamp paper for Rs.62,620/- towards stamp duty and a sum of Rs.9,380/- towards registration fee. After calculating and arriving at the value on par with the market value of the property, the sale deed was registered.
3. Subsequently, respondent No.2 – District Registrar by invoking provision under Section 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 has initiated the suo moto proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner on 27.05.2000 (Annexures B, B1, B2, B3 and B4) by demanding payment of deficit stamp duty. Pursuant to that notice, the petitioner has filed objections dated 22.1.2002 (Annexures C, C1, C2, C3 and C4). The petitioner received demand notices dated 08.06.2009 (Annexures E, E1, E2, E3 and E4) through post. On being enquired, he came to know that cases have been registered against him and he has obtained the copies of the order dated 25.01.2006 (Annexures D, D1, D2, D3 and D4) passed by the second respondent, under the Right to Information Act. As per the order sheet at Annexures F, F1, F2, F3 and F4, on 12.06.2000 the advocate has appeared on behalf of petitioner herein and filed vakalath. Again on 22.01.2007 petitioner’s advocate has filed objections and matter was adjourned. Again the notice was issued on 07.02.2002 to the petitioner fixing 02.03.2002 as the date of spot inspection. On 02.03.2002 it was noted that nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner for conducting spot inspection. Again the case was adjourned. Subsequently on 25.01.2006, the matter was taken up by respondent No.2, without giving any notice an order came to be passed holding that the petitioner has to pay stamp duty of Rs.10 lakh per acre.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed appeal before the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.1 – The Regional Commissioner under Section 45-A(5) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. On the basis of the pleadings and the documents produced by both the parties the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court by filing these writ petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid stamp duty as per the market value of the property as on the date of purchasing the property. His contention is that agreement has been executed in 1995. Therefore, the petitioner has paid stamp duty as per the market value which existed in 1995. He further contended that even as per the guidelines value as on 1998, it is only Rs.3,50,000/-. Contrary to the guidelines value fixed by the authority, the District Registrar has fixed the market value of the property as Rs.10 lakh.
6. He further contended that the impugned orders vide Annexure-D series have been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. As per the order sheet, the matter was posted on 22.01.2002. On that day, the matter was adjourned to 07.02.2002. On 07.02.2002, the District Registrar has passed the order directing to issue notice to the respondents for conducting spot inspection on 02.03.2002. After lapse of 4 years, the matter was posted before the District Registrar. On 25.01.2006, without giving any opportunity to the parties, it has passed the impugned orders vide Annexure-D series. The appellate authority, without application of mind has passed an order dated 30.01.2012 at Annexure-J by confirming the order of District Registrar. Even as per the guidelines value which was issued in the year 1998, the market value of property is Rs.3,50,000/-. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order vide Annexure-J passed by appellate authority is unsustainable. As such, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents submits that the guidelines value is only for the purpose of prima-facie determination of rate of an area concerned, it is not the final market value under the Stamp Act. ‘Market value’ is defined under Section 2 (mm) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. He further submits that there is a procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 ( for short ‘Rules’). As per Rule 5, the authority has determined the market value under the above provisions and passed an order. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders at Annexures-D series and Annexure-J are in accordance with law. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. The first contention which is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders vide Annexures-D series passed by the District Registrar are contrary to the principles of natural justice. He has not given any opportunity to the petitioner. As per the order sheet, it is very clear that pursuant to the notice issued by the authority, the petitioner has filed objections. Then respondent No.2 – District Registrar has issued a notice fixing the date on 02.03.2002 for conducting the spot inspection. But on that day nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. For four years, no proceeding has taken place. Only on 25.01.2006, the matter was taken up and finally order has been passed. It is very much clear that the impugned order is passed by the District Registrar without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The appellate authority, without application of mind and without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-J which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders vide Annexures-D series and J are unsustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 25.01.2006 at Annexure-D series and the order dated 30.01.2012 at Annexure-J are quashed. The matter is remitted back to District Registrar – 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law as per the provisions of Karnataka Stamp Act and Rule 5 of Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments ) Rules, 1977 within six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nms