Smt. Hemedevi vs The Regional Commissioner Bangalore Division, The District Registrar Registration and The Sub Registrar

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this court assailing the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-E) and the order dated 27.5 2013 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-D) The petitioner purchased a land bearing Sy. No. 52/1A measuring 1 acre 19 guntas situate in Beeragoudanahalli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District by a registered sale deed dated 8.11.2006 registered on 15.5.2007. According to him, he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as total consideration for the said land. In that view, the petitioner is stated to have valued the property and appropriate stamp duty had been paid.

The respondents, however, on finding that there was an issue relating to under valuation, had issued a notice to the petitioner and thereafter the 2nd respondent by order dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure-D) has arrived at the conclusion that the valuation made is not proper and deficit stamp duty is required to be paid. In that regard, the amount determined is at Rs. 1,15,175/- and the registration charges of Rs. 13,550/-. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated 21.10.2013 has upheld the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is therefore before this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of the order impugned at Annexure-D would indicate that the 2nd respondent had taken note of the date on which the proceedings had been listed and since the petitioner had not appeared before him and put forth any justification has thereafter gone ahead to consider the matter and passed the order. In such circumstance, even assuming for a moment that the petitioner was not before the Authority, the order passed ought to have been in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules and appropriate consideration ought to have been made. However, a perusal of the order would indicate that the 2nd respondent has only made a sweeping statement that since the value of the property is likely to escalate the manner of valuation made by the 2nd respondent is not justified and stamp duty is found to be in deficit. Such conclusion in any event cannot be justified. A perusal of the order passed by the 1st respondent would indicate that except for referring to the entire facts therein, the Appellate Authority has only upheld the order of the 2nd respondent on the observation that the petitioner had not appeared and produced any material. This conclusion is also not justified. In the present facts, it is seen that and the said conclusion has been reached by the 1st and 2nd respondents only based on assumption, without there being concrete findings with regard to under valuation of the property and short fall in the stamp duty. The orders cannot be sustained. In any event, since the petitioner had not appeared at the first instance opportunity is required to be granted. In that view, the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E and the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-D are quashed. The matter stands remitted to the 2nd respondent to restore the proceedings, provide an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter consider the matter in accordance with law and pass considered order thereafter.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

The amount said to have been deposited by the petitioner while filing an appeal shall now be refunded to him.