Delhi High Court
Prakash-India vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 6 February, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 6th February, 2013
+ WP(C) No.250/2013
PRAKASH-INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rabin Majumdar & Mr. S.P.
Manchanda, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. with Ms.
Megha Bharara & Bandana Shukla,
Advs. for GNCTD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed in
public interest, seeks a direction to the respondent Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to frame Guidelines for fixing the
Circle Rates of immovable properties in the NCT of Delhi, to avoid under-
valuation in transactions of immovable properties and so as to eliminate
evasion of Stamp Duty and minimize the revenue loss to the exchequer. The
petition also impugns the Notification dated 04.12.2012 of the GNCTD
issued in exercise of powers under Sections 27 and 47A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 as in force in Delhi and in pursuance of the provision of Rule 4 of
the Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2007,
revising the minimum rates (Circle Rates) for valuation of lands and
immovable property in Delhi for the purpose and intent of the Stamp Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. It is the contention of the petitioner that
the revised rates are highly arbitrary and ad-hoc. The petition seeks a
further direction for fixing the Circle Rates on the basis of current market
values of the properties and for a direction for revision of the said Circle
Rates at regular intervals.
2. The petitioner has disclosed that earlier also W.P.(C) No.207/2012
was filed with respect to revision of Circle Rates in November, 2011 which
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2012 as under:
"It is not in dispute that Delhi Government has revised
Circle Rates recently i.e. in November, 2011. The petitioner
pleads that it is not an appropriate revision and the Circle
Rates should have been more than what is fixed in the
Notification dated 15th November, 2011.
These are not the matters into which this Court can go.
We are not inclined to entertain this petition as Public Interest
Litigation.
Dismissed."
3. This petition came up before this Court on 16.01.2013 when the
petitioner was directed to file copy of W.P.(C) No.207/2012 and which has
been filed.
4. A perusal of W.P.(C) No.207/2012 which was dismissed as aforesaid
shows that the nature of the challenge in this petition is the same as the
earlier petition which was dismissed by this Court observing 'that it is not
for this Court to go into the question whether the revision in the Circle Rates
is appropriate or not and / or whether the Circle Rates should be more than
notified'. We fail to see as to how a different view can be taken now. The
counsel for the GNCTD appearing on advance notice has also informed that
the revision in Circle Rates was on the basis of the report of a Committee
under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Revenue)-cum-Divisional
Commissioner and a copy whereof is handed over in Court and is taken on
record. It thus cannot be said that the revision effected is arbitrary or
whimsical or without any basis whatsoever.
5. The question as to whether the Circle Rates fixed by the Government
are appropriate or not or should be higher or lower or are not in consonance
with the market rates are matters of policy on which no jurisdiction can be
exercised by us. Of course, if it was the case that the Circle Rates have been
fixed without any appropriate application of mind, it would have been a
different matter. It is not found so in view of a Committee having been
constituted and the revision being on the basis of the report of the said
Committee.
6. No case for entertaining this petition in public interest is thus made
out. The petition is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 06, 2013
'gsr'.
