STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus MOHABIR SINGH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 21-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHABIR SINGH ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended by the Punjab Stamp Act 1982): 
S.47A-Document presented for registration-Duty of Registering 
C Authority-Guideline valuation-Instructions issued by Govemment-Effect 
of-Held; Not consistent with sub-se~tion (1) of S.47A-Open to State Govt. 
to revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with law. 
In the main appeals, the respondents entered into an agreement of 
D 
sale for purchase of a portion of a house situated in Jallandhar of an extent 
of 20 marlas for a consideration valued at Rs. 7500 per maria. While the 
sale deed was to be executed and registered, the Sub-registrar, based on 
the Govt. instructions, opined that the prevailing market value was not 
·less than Rs. 15,000 per maria and on that basis he required the vendee 
to revise the instrument and fix the consideration for. the purpos.e of stamp 
E 
duty and registration charges on the revised valuation. Respondents filed 
writ petition and the High Court held that the guidelines cannot control 
the quasi-judicial discretion given to the Registering authority under 
S.47 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 as amended by Punjab Stamp Act, 
1982. Hence these appeals. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. Registering Authority has to satisfy himself that value of 
the property or the t;onsideration for it has not been truly set forth in the 
instrumeQt. He may make a reference to the Collector in accordance with 
G the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. 
Before making reference, he is required to register the document and he is 
not empowered to withhold the registration. Such a registration, of course, 
will be subject to the determination of the true market value 11revailing in 
the locality though the value mentioned in the instruction for such registra-
H tion under sub-section (1) of section 47 A was not conclusive. [524-B-C] 
520 
' 
STATE v. MOHABIR SINGH 
521 
2. The guidelines provided by the State would only serve as prima A 
f acie material available before the Registering Authority to alert him 
regarding the value. It is common knowledge that the value of the property 
varies from place to place or even from locality to locality in the same 
place. No absolute higher or minimum value can be pre-determined. It 
would depend on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered B 
by the instrument is situated. It will be only on objective satisfaction that 
the Authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating 
to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued or 
consideration mentioned when it is presented for registration. The ul-
timate decision would be with the Collector subject to the decision on an 
appeal before the District Court as provided under sub-section (4) of C 
section 47A. (524-D-E] 
3. The offending instructions are not consistent with sub-section (1) 
of section 47A. It would, therefore, be open to the State Government to 
revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent \\ith law. 
[525-Al D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5337-41 
of 1990 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.90 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 15447-49, 16047 and 16802 of 1989. 
E 
U.N. Bachawat, Ujagar Singh, Alakahendra Misra, G.K. Bansal, 
Ashok Grover, C.K. Mahajan, P.N. Puri, S.M. Sarin, Devadar Verma, 
Satish Vig, Ms. Rekha Palli, Anant Palli, Atul Sharma, Prem Malhotra and 
Naresh Bakshi for the appearing parties. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
The facts in C.A. Nos. 5337-41 of 1990 are sufficient for disposal of G 
all these appeals. 
The respondents had entered into an agreement of sale on March 4, 
1989, to purchase from the vendors, Virender Singh and Rupinder Singh, 
a portion of house (Kathi No. 519) situated in Model Town, Jallandhar, of 
an extent of 20 marlas for a consideration valued at Rs. 9,700 per maria H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
and they appear to have paid as earnest money of Rs. 95.000. The sale deed 
was required to be executed and registered before November 30, 1989. Few 
days prior to the aforesaid date the instrument appears to have been valued 
at Rs. 50,000 and stamp duty was paid and presented for the sa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.