The term "reason to believe" is
combination of two words. The word "reason"
means cause or justification and the word
"believe" means to accept as true or faith in it.
In other words it means comming to conclusion on
basis of information that a thing, condition,
statement or fact exists. It means facts which
prima facie convince any reasonable person under
the circumstances of the case to form a belief
that will impel upon him to take action under
law.
11. It is always open to the Court to
examine the question whether reason to believe
has a rational connection or a relevant bearing
to the formation of the belief and are not
extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose.
REPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.656 OF 1993.
Vinod Kumar Nagindas Shah, V state of maharashtra
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 24.02.2012.
1. Heard.
2. All these petitions involve common
question of law, as such are decided together.
3. The petitioners in all these Writ
Petitions had presented the document of
conveyance for registration in the year 1982/83.
At that time, the registering authority did not
raise objection about the valuation/consideration
shown in the document of conveyance.
Subsequently, in the year 1990/91, the
Respondent authority issued notice to the
petitioners in Form I purportedly invoking
Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, contending
therein that the consideration amount/valuation
shown is improper and not according to the true
market value. Some of the petitioners preferred
appeal before the appellate authority which were
dismissed. All the petitioners herein have
assailed the order of the authority determining
the market value and holding that the
consideration shown in the deed of conveyance is
not the true market value.
4. Mr.Thole, learned counsel for some of
the petitioners submits that the authority could
not have invoked the jurisdiction U/s 32A after
lapse of eight (8) years. The documents were
registered in the year 1982 and after the year
1990, the notices were issued. The learned
counsel further contends that there was no
material on record before the authority to arrive
at the conclusion that the market value is not
the same as shown in the document of conveyance.
According to the learned counsel, it is a case of
arbitrary exercise of power. The learned counsel
submits that the consideration amount shown in
the document of conveyance is the real
consideration amount and is the true market
value.
5. Mr.More, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader
submits that at the relevant time the authority
was empowered to consider the transactions
entered into between the parties till eight (8)
years. The documents were tendered for
registration but were not registered. In view of
that the limitation of eight (8) years as sought
to be applied by the petitioners is unfounded.
The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader further contends
that the authorities have taken into
consideration the sale instances of the adjoining
areas, so also the other adjudications made by
the authorities while arriving at the conclusion
of the true market value. No fault can be found
in the order of the authorities determining the
market value. It was within their competence.
6. Before I proceed to deal with the
contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for
respective parties, it would be appropriate to
refer to the relevant provision Section 32A of
the Bombay Stamp Act as it stood then reads as
under :
"32A. (1) Every instrument of
conveyance, exchange, gift,
certificate of sale, deed of
partition or power of attorney to
sell immovable property when given
for consideration, deed of settlement
or transfer of lease by way of
assignment, presented for
registration under the provisions of
Registration Act, 1908, shall be
accompanied by a true copy thereof :
Provided that, in case of such
instruments executed on or after the
4th July 1980, to the date of
commencement of the Bombay Stamp
(Amendment) Act, 1985, an extract of
the instrument to be taken from the
registration record shall be deemed
to be the true copy accompanying the
instrument, presented for
registration for the purposes of subsection (1).
(2) If any officer registering
such instrument has reason to believe
that the market value of the
immovable property which is the
subject matter of such instrument has
not been truly setforth therein, he
may, (before) registering the
instrument, refer the true copy of
such instrument to the Collector of
the District for determination of the
true market value of such property
and the proper duty payable on the
instrument.
(3) If any person referred to in
section 33, before whom any such
instrument is produced or comes in
the performance of his functions, has
reason to believe that the market
value of the immoveable property
which is the subject matter of such
instrument has not been truly
setforth therein, he may, after
performing his function in respect of
such instrument, refer the instrument
alongwith a true copy of such
instrument to the Collector of the
District for determination of the
true market value of such property
and the proper duty payable on the
instrument.
(4) On receipt of the
instrument or the true copy of the
instrument as the case may be, under
sub-section (2) or (3), the Collector
of the District shall, after giving
the parties concerned a reasonable
opportunity of being heard and in
accordance with the rules made by the
State Government in that behalf,
determine the true market value of
the immoveable property which is the
subject matter of the instrument and
the proper duty payable thereon.
Upon such determination, the
Collector of the District shall
require the party liable to pay the
duty, to make the payment of the
amount required to make up the
difference between the amount of duty
determined under this sub-section and
the amount of duty already paid by
him and shall also require such party
to pay in addition, a penalty which
shall not be less than such
difference and not more than twice
the amount of such difference; and on
such payment, the instrument received
under sub-section (2) or (3) shall be
returned to the officer or person
referred to therein;
Provided that, no such party
shall be required to pay any amount
to make up the difference or to pay
any penalty under this sub-section,
if the difference between the amount
of the market value as setforth in
the instrument and the market value
as determined by the Collector of the
District does not exceed ten percent
of the market value determined by the
Collector of the District.
(5) The Collector of the
District may, suo motu or on receipt
of information from any source,
within (eight years) from the date of
registration of any instrument
referred to in sub-section (1), (not
being the instrument upon which an
endorsement has been made under 17
W.P.No.656/93 with connected WPs.
section 32 or the instrument or the
instruments in respect of which the
proper duty has been determined by
him under sub-section (4) or an
instrument executed before the 4th
July 1980), call for the true copy or
an abstract of the instrument from
the registering officer and examine
it for the prupose of satisfying
himself as to the correctness of the
market value of the immoveable
property which is the subject matter
of such instrument and the duty
payable thereon; and if, after such
examination, he has reason to believe
that the market value of such
property has not been truly and fully
setforth in the instrument he shall
proceed as provided in sub-section
(4).
(6) It shall be lawful for the
Collector of the District to transfer
any reference received by him under
sub-section (3) of section 31 or
under this section for determination
of the true market value of the
immoveable property which is the
subject matter of the instrument and
the proper duty payable thereon, for
disposal in accordance with the
provisions of the said sub-section
(3) of Section 31 or, as the case may
be, this section, to the Additional
Collector of the District, if any, or
any other officer in his District not
below the rank of -
(i) Tahsildar,
(ii)Town Planner borne on the
cadre of the Director of Town
Planning, Maharashtra State, or;
(iii)Joint District Registrar
appointed under the Registration Act,
1908 as the State Government may,
from time to time, by general or
special order in the official
Gazette, specify."
7. There is no record to suggest that the
instruments submitted by the petitioners were
registered at the relevant time. The contention
of the petitioners that the action is initiated
after eight (8) years of registration of the
documents is as such not tenable.
8. Form No.I/Notice as issued to the
petitioners, nowhere lays down the market value
arrived by the authority i.e. it does not state
as to the quantum of market value which according
to the authority is the true market value.
9. It is a trite law that when statute
requires a particular act to be done in a
particular manner, it has to be done in that
manner only. The authority invoking its
jurisdiction U/s 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act,
shall be governed by the rigors of Section 32A
of the Act. Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp
Act, empowers the authority to call for the
record and if he has "reason to believe" that the
market value of such property has not been truly
set forth in the instrument then he can proceed
further.
10. The expression "reason to believe" is
with some intent and purpose. It acts as fetter
on the arbitrary exercise of power by the
authority. Phraseology "reason to believe"
contemplates objective determination based on
intelligent deliberation in contra distinction
to purely subjective consideration of the
authority. The term "reason to believe" is
combination of two words. The word "reason"
means cause or justification and the word
"believe" means to accept as true or faith in it.
In other words it means comming to conclusion on
basis of information that a thing, condition,
statement or fact exists. It means facts which
prima facie convince any reasonable person under
the circumstances of the case to form a belief
that will impel upon him to take action under
law.
11. It is always open to the Court to
examine the question whether reason to believe
has a rational connection or a relevant bearing
to the formation of the belief and are not
extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose. 21
W.P.No.656/93 with connected WPs.
12. In the present case, perusal of the
notices and the orders, it is manifest that there
was absolutely no material worth the name before
the authority for invoking Section 32A of the
Act. The show cause notice/Form I issued to the
petitioners did not even refer to the amount
considered to be market value according to the
authority. The appellate authority has only
stated that in some of the matters, he has held
market value of other properties and has applied
the same standard.
13. The market value of a property depends
upon various facets i.e. the location,
surrounding, amenities, topography etc. The
order does not discuss about any such aspect.
14. From the aforesaid conspectus of the
matter, it is manifest that the authority did not
possess any material before it for satisfying
itself about the true market value. In other
words, the authority has failed to satisfy the
test of "reason to believe" as engulfed in the
said provision.
15. In light of the above, the impugned
orders and the action of the authority can not be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and set
aside and are hereby quashed and set aside.
16. Rule accordingly made absolute.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment