REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES & ANR. versus ASL VYAPAR PRIVATE LTD. & ANR

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 10-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 1098
REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES & ANR.
v.
ASL VYAPAR PRIVATE LTD. & ANR
(Civil Appeal No.8281 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA AND VIKRAM
NATH, JJ.]
Indian stamp Act,1899 – s.47A – Reference – Answered –
Held: s.47A has no application to a public auction carried out
through Court process/receiver as it is the most transparent manner
of obtaining the correct market value of the property – The
independent determination of value of property by a Registering
officer would not apply to a Court sale but to a private transaction
– Interference by the Registering Authority on the aspect of price
of transaction is unjustified – Reference is required to be answered
by opining that in case of a public auction monitored by the Court,
the discretion would not be available to the Registering Authority
u/s.47A of the Act.
Indian Stamp Act,1899 – Object and purpose – Discussed.
Answering the reference and dismissing the appeals, the
Court,
HELD : 1. This Court does not have slightest hesitation in
upholding the view that the provision of Section 47A of the Act
cannot be said to have any application to a public auction carried
out through court process/receiver as that is the most transparent
manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property.
[Para 22][1113-A-B]
2. It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price
obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of a
scenario where the auction may be challenged which could result
in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the
possibility of it being overturned. But then that is a price
obtainable as a result of the process by which the property has to
be disposed of. One cannot lose sight of the very objective of the
introduction of the Section whether under the West Bengal
1098
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
Amendment Act or in any other State, i.e., that in case of under
valuation of property, an aspect not uncommon in our country,
where consideration may be passing through two modes – one
the declared price and the other undeclared component, the State
should not be deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not
reflect the correct price in the document as something more has
been paid through a different method. The objective is to take
care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected
and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable
of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a reflection on the
manner in which the transfer of an immovable property takes
place as the price obtainable in a transparent manner would be
different. An auction of a property is possibly one of the most
transparent methods by which the property can be sold. Thus, to
say that even in a court monitored auction, the Registering
Authority would have a say on what is the market price, would
amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the
decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price. In a
court auction following its own procedure, the Registering Officer
cannot have any reason to believe that the market value of the
property was not duly set forth – a pre-requisite for a Registering
Authority to exercise its power under the said Section. [Paras
23, 26][1113-B-F, 1114-D-E]
3. If this court see in the factual context of the two scenarios
in respect of the two cases, the telling aspect in a partition case
was the existence of 98 tenants on a land at a monthly rent of
Rs.8,000 for the entire land and 80 vendors occupying the land
for hawking business during day time. It is trite to say that the
mere existence of tenancy results in a considerable decline in
the market value of the property as they may have their statutory
rights and even otherwise, the purchaser would be acquiring the
property hardly in an ideal scenario and would be left with the
burden to take legal processes for the eviction. In such a scenario,
there is actually a great depression in the market value of the
property as even if a fair transaction without an auction takes
place with full reflection of price, the transacted value would be
half or less of a vacant property. The tenancy aspect can hardly
be said to be an aspect which could be ignored in the determination
of the price. [ Para 27][1114-E-G]
REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES & ANR. v. ASL VYAPAR
PRIVATE LTD. & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
4. In 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.