Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition (W.P.No.5068/2009) disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 3 December 2010. In the concluding paragraph 9 of that order, the Single Judge directed the Registry to mark a copy of the order to the Secretary, Revenue Department, who was directed to circulate it among all District Registrars in the State with a direction that they shall not indulge in fixing the market value of the property contrary to the notified Government value and that at no point of time the valuation should be in excess of the notified Government value. The appellants, the District Registrar and Sub Registrar, challenged this direction by way of a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The learned Additional Government Advocate confined the challenge to the observations in paragraph 9. The Division Bench, after hearing counsel, noted that the direction was too broad and could not be sustained in law. The court observed that the District Registrar has powers under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to determine the market value of property based on guidelines and may, in appropriate cases, arrive at a value higher than the notified Government value. The blanket direction prohibiting any valuation in excess of the notified Government value was set aside. The appeal was allowed in part, and the direction in paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.2010 was set aside. The rest of the order was not disturbed.
Headnote
A) Stamp Duty - Market Value Fixation - Powers of District Registrar - Section 45A Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - The learned Single Judge directed that District Registrars shall not fix market value in excess of notified Government value. The Division Bench held that such a blanket direction is not sustainable as the District Registrar has powers under Section 45A to determine market value based on guidelines and may arrive at a value higher than the notified Government value in appropriate cases. The appeal was allowed in part, and the direction in paragraph 9 of the order was set aside. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge's direction that District Registrars shall not fix market value in excess of notified Government value is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed in part. The direction contained in paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.5068/2009 is set aside. The rest of the order is not disturbed.
Law Points
- Market value fixation
- Stamp duty
- Government value
- District Registrar's powers
- Section 45A Karnataka Stamp Act
- 1957
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (02) 3
W.A.No.17129/2011 (GM-ST/RN)
Justice Dilip B Bhosale, Justice B Manohar
Sri M. Keshava Reddy (AGA) for appellants, Sri Mallikarjun C Basareddy for respondent 1
The District Registrar, Shimoga District and The Sub Registrar, Bhadravathi Taluk
Smt V Manjula and Others (including legal representatives of deceased respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against a direction in a writ petition order regarding market value fixation by District Registrars.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the observations in paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.2010 in W.P.No.5068/2009.
Filing Reason
The learned Single Judge directed that District Registrars shall not fix market value in excess of notified Government value, which the appellants contended was legally unsustainable.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.No.5068/2009 on 3.12.2010 with the direction in paragraph 9.
Issues
Whether the direction that District Registrars shall not fix market value in excess of notified Government value is legally valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned AGA submitted that the challenge is confined to the observations in paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.2010.
Ratio Decidendi
The District Registrar has powers under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 to determine the market value of property based on guidelines and may, in appropriate cases, arrive at a value higher than the notified Government value. A blanket direction prohibiting any valuation in excess of the notified Government value is not sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned AGA submits that he has instructions to confine challenge to the observations made in the concluding paragraph 9 of the order dated 3.12.10 passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.No.5068/09.
After inviting our attention to Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, he submits that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 cannot be sustained in law.
We find substance in the submission made by the learned AGA. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the order is too broad and cannot be sustained in law.
Procedural History
The writ petition W.P.No.5068/2009 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 3.12.2010 with a direction in paragraph 9. The appellants filed a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act challenging that direction. The appeal was heard for final disposal at the stage of admission on 21.2.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
- Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: Section 45A
