Karnataka High Court
The District Registrar vs Vivek Marla on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
WA No. 1232 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2022 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
GANDHINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT
No.4, DODDA BYRAPPA ROAD
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 003
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPT. OF REGISTRATION AND STAMP DUTY
KSRTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
Digitally signed AND:
by
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA 1. VIVEK MARLA
Location: High
Court of S/O KRISHNA MARLA
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2. CHETANA MARLA
W/O VIVEK MARLA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT No.608
80 FEET ROAD, RMV II STAGE
III BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 094
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
WA No. 1232 of 2022
(BY SRI. SOHAN H.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL (b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.271/2013 (GM-ST/RN) DATED
08.03.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed as against the judgment
dated 08.03.2022 in WP No.271/2013. The proceedings at
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
Annexure-H issued by the first respondent under Section
45-A(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the
Act') were set aside by the learned Single Judge on the
ground that the procedure prescribed by the Rules for
collecting the estimated stamp value and registration
charges on the correct valuation of the land had not been
followed.
3. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 3-A
and 5 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of
Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 (for short
'Rules 1977') provides for communicating the estimated
market value and the stamp duty which ought to have
been paid on the instrument is to be communicated by the
registering authority to the parties. It is submitted that the
said procedure had not been followed in the instant case.
4. The learned Single Judge also found, on facts,
that the extent of the plot in question was only 4,520
square feet and Annexure-H order which states that there
was a residential house constructed in the property having
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
two floors with an area of 12,500 square feet each, on
each of the floors would clearly show the complete want of
application of mind and that as such, on facts also, the
order was completely vitiated.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing
for the appellants submits that the value of the land which
was shown in the document was clearly insufficient since
the land was sold in the year 1998. It is submitted that
the land value in the area in question at the relevant time
was at least Rs.3,000 per square feet and that the sale
executed for a paltry amount clearly amounted to under
valuation. It is submitted that even if the wrong
mentioning of the area of the building in Annexure-H is
disregarded totally, the writ petitioner would have to pay
the stamp duty on the basis of the actual land value. It is
therefore contended that even if the appeal is not
entertained, liberty may be left to the State to take
appropriate action as against the undervaluation, in
accordance with law.
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge
has considered the factual as well as the legal contentions
and had found that the provisions of Section 45-A of the
Stamp Act as well as the Rule 3-A and Rule 5 of the 1977
rules have not been followed by the authorities in
question. Learned Single Judge has specifically found that
the Registering Authority had proceeded to register the
instrument, without keeping it pending even though he
was proposing to make a reference for under valuation.
Thereafter also, though Rule 3-A of 1977 rules makes it a
mandatory for the registering authority, while making a
reference, to communicate to the parties in Form 1-A, the
estimated market value arrived at by him, no such
communication was made in the instant case. Further, on
the basis of the table as provided under Annexure-H, the
learned Single Judge found that the site dimension was
only 4,520 square feet and that the finding that there was
a 2 storied building having an area of 12,500 square feet
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
on each floor reveals a complete want of application of
mind. It is further contended that impounding and
reference for undervaluation can be done only within the
prescribed time limit and that the power having been
exercised incorrectly, permission cannot be granted for
further action since the law would not permit such
exercise.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the learned Single Judge had also found
that the sale was executed in the year 1998 and the
sanctioned plan for construction on the site was obtained
only thereafter, on 30.06.1998. It was also found that it
was on the basis of the inspection conducted in the year
2002 that the estimated value of the property had been
arrived at which is also purely perverse.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we are of the opinion that the contentions of the
appellants have been considered by the learned Single
Judge and that the findings on fact and law by the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:9442-DB
Single Judge in the judgment under appeal require no
interference. The writ petition therefore fails and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
RAK
