Remanded

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2024WPC/24/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged the Board of Revenue's order setting aside a Collector's stamp duty assessment for allegedly lacking a hearing. The Court held the Board erred by reversing instead of remanding. It remitted the matter to the Collector to determine the duty after issuing notices to parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order quashed and the matter remanded to the concerned Collector of Stamp to decide the issue after issuing notice to the parties.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 24 of 2013

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Of Stamps, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur C.G. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) Through The Registrar, C.G. Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur C.G.

¶8

2. Mahipal Mehra S/o Kewalkishan Mehra, R/o. Janakpur Ward, Kanker, District : North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶9

_____________________________________________________________________ For State/Petitioner : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate

¶10

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. Order On Board

¶11

03.04.2024

¶12

By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Appeal Case No. A/09/S.A./B-105/446/2006, whereby, the order passed by the Collector of Stamp dated 27.07.2006 in Revenue Case No.10/B-105/2005-06 has been set-aside.

¶13

From perusal of the record, it appears that a suit, being Civil Suit No.6-A/1996 was instituted by Respondent No.2-Mahipal Mehra on the basis of an agreement to sale, purported to have been executed by one Ravindra Nath Banerjee in his favour on 02.11.1988. It appears that when the registered deed of sale was not executed in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale, the said suit was instituted by Respondent No.2 before the Civil Judge Class-I, Kanker where, vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2000, the said suit was decreed. It appears further that the judgment and decree as passed on 07.03.2000 was affirmed further by the Additional

¶14

¶15

District Judge (FTC) Kanker vide its judgment and decree dated 01.01.2006 in Civil Appeal No.70-A/2002 and, was found to be affirmed further by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2006 in Second Appeal No.78/2006.

¶16

In pursuance to the execution of the aforesaid decree, the deed of sale was executed on 02.05.2006 and was submitted before the SubRegistrar, Kanker for its registration, who, however, found it to be insufficiently stamped, therefore, being dissatisfied, the Sub-Registrar Kanker has referred the matter to the Collector of Stamp, Bastar (Jagdalpur) under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, which is applicable to the State of C.G. by way of amendment made in the year 2000, for determination of the proper stamp duty.

¶17

The aforesaid reference was registered as Revenue Case No. 10/B105/2005-06 and after considering the market value prevailing at the relevant point of time, it was observed by the Collector of Stamp that the market value of the property in question would be to the tune of Rs.5,27,420/- as per the prevailing guidelines for the year 2006-07 and, the proper stamp duty of Rs.51,176/- is, therefore, liable to be paid on it. It was observed further that since only a sum of Rs.2,280/- was paid in this regard, therefore, a direction was issued vide its order dated 27.07.2006 for the deposition of the deficit stamp duty of Rs.48,896/- (Rs.51,176 - Rs.2,280/-) which was required to be paid by Respondent No.2.

¶18

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an Appeal was preferred by Respondent No.2 before the Board of Revenue, who, in turn, after considering the same, arrived at a conclusion that since the said order, i.e. order dated 27.07.2006, has been passed by the Collector of Stamp without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the Respondent No.2- Mahipal

¶19

¶20

Mehra in violation of the procedure prescribed under the said Act and, therefore, it cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and, accordingly, the order as passed by the Collector of Stamp, Bastar on 27.07.2006 has been reversed.

¶21

It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that once it has been held by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned that the said order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the said Act, then under such an eventuality, the matter should have been remanded to the Collector of Stamp, Bastar for determination of the actual stamp duty on the alleged deed of sale dated 02.05.2006. Having failed to do so, the Board of Revenue has committed an illegality in passing the order impugned as such without remitting the matter back to the concerned Collector of Stamp for determination of the proper stamp duty payable on the said instrument, executed on 02.05.2006.

¶22

In view of above, the order impugned, is, liable to be and is hereby clarified while remitting the matter back to the concerned Collector of Stamp with a direction to decide the said issue as referred to it, by the SubRegistrar, Kanker, for determination of the stamp duty payable on the said instrument, in accordance with law. It is directed further that the concerned Authority before deciding the same shall issue notice to the concerned parties.

¶23

The petition is, accordingly, disposed off with the aforesaid observation.

¶24

No order as to cost(s).

¶25

Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶26

Vishakha

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Scope College Of Nursing Institute Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission And Anr.

Shiv Narayan Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Cheti Bai Vs Smt. Pushpa Agrawal