Calcutta High Court
Remedy Medical Services Private ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 6 January, 2023
OD-3
ORDER SHEET
WPO/158/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
REMEDY MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : January 6, 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv.
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
...for the petitioners
Mr. Arindam Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
...for the State
Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Adv.
... for the respondent nos. 4 & 5
The Court:-
The subject matters of challenge in the writ petition are the e-
assessment slips and the market value of the property set forth therein
by the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue, Government of
West Bengal. The last e-assessment slip fixed the market value of the
self-same property at Rs.8,82,19,343/- and the total stamp duty payable
has been calculated at Rs.61,75,404/-.
The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent nos.4,
5 and 6 agreed to sell a land measuring 16 cottahs 3 chittaks and 21
sq.ft. in Mouza Noapara by an agreement for sale dated November 21,
2020. The petitioners put the deed for registration. The set forth value of
the land was mentioned at Rs.70 lacs by the petitioner no.2. Such matter
came up before the respondent no.3 who determined the market value at
Rs.2,95,89,998/-. On the basis of the determination of the market value
by the respondent no.3, the agreement was sought to be registered on
November 21, 2021 upon payment of Rs.20,71,320/- as stamp duty.
The registration was not done.
The petitioners came to learn that even after payment of the
stamp duty on November 17, 2020, the respondent no.3 had suo motu
rectified and revised the e-assessment. In terms of the rectified e-
assessment slip dated November 25, 2020, the set forth value of the land
with the structure was determined as Rs.3,50,00000/-. The petitioners
made a further payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,78,700/-. The
registered agreement of sale was not handed over. On January 20, 2021,
the petitioners came to learn that the e-assessment was again rectified
on January 20, 2021 and the market value was assessed at
Rs.4,43,71,692/-. The stamp duty payable by the petitioners was
assessed at Rs.31,06,039/-. Thereafter the same was again rectified with
the market value at Rs.8,82,19,343/- with the stamp duty assessed at
Rs.61,75,404/-. The last two rectifications/revisions of the assessment of
the market value have been challenged by the petitioners on the following
grounds : -
a) The authority could not have rectified and revised the
market value on four consecutive occasions between
November 13, 2020 to March 3, 2021 without substantial
change either in the rate of stamp duty or in the method of
assessment or in the nature and character of the suit
property.
b) The rules did not permit concurrent revisions and
rectifications.
It is on record that the petitioners have already paid a sum of
Rs.24,50,020/- as stamp duty on the basis of the e-assessment dated
November 25, 2020. The stamp duties as assessed by the authorities
thereafter, have not been paid. As of today, as per the calculation made
by the authorities, there is a deficit stamp duty of approximately Rs.35
lacs.
Upon considering the e-assessment slips, it appears that the
authority considered the concerned land to be bastu on January 20,
2021 and thereafter, semi-commercial on February 24, 2021 and finally
commercial on March 3, 2021. Such frequent change in potential user
and nature of the land proposed to be sold, is neither backed by any
reason nor by any factual foundation.
The affidavit-in-opposition only indicates that the registering officer
reserved the right under the rules to determine the stamp duty through
cord software. In sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 4 at page 5 of the
opposition, it has been stated that the registering officer could make
spot enquiry to consider the various parameters and also assess the
potential value of the land on the basis of proposed land use. Assuming
that such exercise was undertaken by the authority, in the prima facie
opinion of the Court, the potential use of the land could not have
changed from bastu to semi-commercial and then to commercial with
three months and the market value could not be hiked to such an extent.
Such frequent change of the idea of potential use of the land in the
judgment of the authority in this case, seems to be prima facie arbitrary,
irrational, unreasonable and harrasive. The rules also do not permit the
same.
Under such circumstances, the authority shall allow the
petitioners to take delivery of the registered deed on the basis of the
stamp duty already paid. The registration shall be subject to the final
decision of this writ petition. If the petitioners fail in their challenge, the
deficit court fee as determined on March 3, 2021 shall be paid to the
registering authority. The registering authority shall hand over the
registered sale deed with a rider that the registration would be subject to
the final decision in WPO No.158 of 2021.
The registering authority will register the deed and hand over the
same to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of
communication of this order. A separate undertaking shall be filed by
the petitioners before the registering authority, namely, the respondent
no.3 with an undertaking to pay the deficit court fees as may be finally
assessed in case the petitioners' challenge in the writ petition ultimately
fails.
Mr. Mukherjee represents the vendor and supports the case of the
petitioner.
Mr. Sinha submits that an opportunity to file a detailed affidavit be
granted to the respondents.
Further affidavit-in-opposition to be filed by the State authorities
in addition to the one already filed, for final adjudication of the issues
before this Court.
Let such opposition be filed within six weeks; reply within two
weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention.
Parties to act on a server copy of this order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
[SHAMPA SARKAR, J.]
sg.
