Sri Piyush Saraogi vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8358 Cal

AD-17
Ct No.09
15.12.2022

TN WPA No. 37381 of 2013

Sri Piyush Saraogi Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Soumo Chaudhury .... for the petitioner

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mrs. S. Chatterjee .... for the State

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The contention of the petitioner is that the

Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-III,

Hooghly acted palpably without jurisdiction in

assessing the market value of a property for the

purpose of calculating stamp duty on the premise that

the land would be used for industrial purpose,

whereas there is nothing on record or in the deed to

indicate such use.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places

reliance on Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899

(West Bengal Amendment) to argue that Sub-Section

(1) of the said Section provides that the Registering

Officer, only if he has reason to believe that the

market value of the property which is the subject-

matter of any such instrument has not been truly set

forth in the instrument presented for registration,

may, after receiving such instrument, ascertain the

market value of the property which is the subject-

matter of such instrument in the manner prescribed

and compute the proper stamp duty chargeable on the

market value so ascertained.

However, in the present case, there is no scope

of there being any such "reason to believe" on the part

of the Deputy Inspector General.

Learned counsel further argues that the

enhancement of the assessed market value is virtually

a revision of the annual statement of rates of

immovable property, without there being any such

revision on record.

Rule 3D of the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention

of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001

provides that the annual statement of rates of

immovable property, as referred to in Rule 3B thereof,

shall be revised annually by the Registering Officer in

consultation with the appropriate District Registrar

and the same shall be communicated to the Inspector

General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp

Revenue, West Bengal for updating the CORD

software. In the present case, no such exercise was

undertaken.

Learned counsel further contends that after the

introduction of the CORD software, the same has to

be used for the determination of the market value. In

the present case, the said rule was not adhered to, it

is submitted.

Learned counsel further argues that when the

purported inspection of the land was held, the person

concerned did not physically visit the land and, as

such, the assessment is based merely on conjecture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a

coordinate Bench judgment of this court reported at

AIR 2016 Cal 357 [Chandramallika Suppliers Private

Limited & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]. In

paragraph no. 29 of the same, it is observed that the

question that required consideration in the said case

was whether the "Proposed Land Use" column - when

required to be filled-up by an applicant, will have any

time frame attached to it or not.

While deciding such issue, the learned Single

Judge proceeded to observe that preparation of

market value of the concerned land and the rate per

square feet of market value of any flat or structure for

residential or commercial or semi-commercial use has

to be determined in the manner laid down under the

various clauses under Rule 3B. It is submitted that, in

the absence of any deviation in the settled market rate

as appearing in the CORD software or otherwise, it

was beyond the jurisdiction of the DIG to pass the

impugned order of assessment.

Heard learned counsel.

The cited judgment, in paragraph no. 29 thereof,

clearly delineates the question which was formulated

for being answered therein. The question was whether

the "Proposed Land Use" column, when required to be

filled up, will have any time frame attached to it or

not. In such context, the learned Single Judge

considered the interplay of Rules 3A to 3B of the 2001

Rules and came to a conclusion.

However, the entire ambit of dispute there was

whether it was imperative to attach a time frame to

the details to be filled up under the column "Proposed

Land Use".

However, the ratio of the said judgment has no

nexus with the present writ petition and, as such, is

not attracted in the present case.

Insofar as the operation of Section 47A of the

West Bengal Amendment to the Stamp Act is

concerned, the same clearly stipulates that wherever

there is reason to believe that the market value of the

property has not been truly set forth, after receiving

the instrument, the Registering Officer appointed

under the Registration Act shall ascertain the market

value of the property.

It is clear that the perception and notion of the

Registering Officer in that regard is sufficient to

initiate a proceeding under Section 47A. There is no

stipulation in the statute mandating the recording of

prior satisfaction or giving any hearing to any party

prior to the Registering Officer proceeding on the basis

of the said provision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in

submitting that Rule 3D of the 2001 Rules stipulates

the provisions as to revision of annual statement of

rates of immovable property. However, the question

which arises in the present case is whether the

Registering Officer, while exercising his power under

Section 47A (West Bengal Amendment) can vary the

assessment from the revised market rate as appearing

in the CORD software.

What has been done in the present impugned

assessment is that the DIG, Registration observed that

the seller of the land was one Hindustan Agro Project

India Limited who had purchased the said land for the

use of industrial purpose. A deed number has also

been referred in such context. It has further been

observed that the land is presently lying uncultivated

and, of course, has got the potentiality and viability

for industrial use.

Only upon such reasonable premise did the DIG

proceed to make the assessment. Even in paragraph

no. 20 of the judgment cited by the petitioner

(although the citation itself is not applicable on point

of ratio in the present case), the learned Single Judge

observed that the judgments of the Supreme Court

relied on by the learned Advocate General for the State

in the said matter clearly defines market value, which

includes in its definition its potential value.

The significance of the word "potential", it was

held, should not be lost sight of and it connotes, by

itself, something having such latent qualities which

have a capacity to develop or lead to future success or

usefulness.

In such view of the matter, even the cited

judgment of the petitioner supports the contention of

the authorities and not the petitioner.

In the present case, what was done by the DIG

was precisely to assess the potentiality and viability

for industrial use of the land-in-question and to arrive

at a reasoned conclusion on the valuation.

The allegation, that no physical inspection was

made, is neither here nor there. Such allegation was

not levelled before the Officer at the time of hearing as

well, in which the petitioner's representative was

present.

Be that as it may, the ratio in the said

assessment which is under challenge and the

reasoning process of the same cannot be doubted in

any manner whatsoever and does not carry any patent

mala fides or arbitrariness. As such, there is no scope

of interfering with the valuation assessed by the DIG,

Registration, Range-III, Hooghly.

Hence, WPA No. 37381 of 2013 is dismissed on

contest without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)