Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
9. The scheme for valuation for the purpose of registration would show that an instrument has to be valued in terms of the market value at the time of execution of the document. In the instan~ case, it appears that there was no such valuation in the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, as per annexure P3-0rder dated 30.03.2001, directed the Sheristadar to asses the amount of stamp paper for the valuation of the suit property. The suit was instituted in the year 1999. The same was compromised in the year 2001. The plaintiff filed stamp papers as per valuation of the Sheristadar in the suit on 03.08.2004 G and the decree was presented for registration before the Additional Registrar on 23.05.2007. In view of the objection raised with regard to the assessment of market value for the purpose of registration, the plaintiff sought for clarification leading to annexure PG-Order.
10. The High Court has placed reliance on a single bench decision in Nitya Hari Kundu's case (supra). It was a case where the court permitted an item of a trust property to be sold after fixing the market value. When the Registrar refused to accept the valuation made by the court, a writ petition was filed B in the High Court where it was conceded by the Registrar that: c "14 …. it is correct to say that a Court decision permitting a trust estate to sell a trust property for a particular consideration, must necessarily be accepted as a determination of the market value of the property in the stamp rules."
11. However, the High Court also considered the matter on merits and finally held in paragraph 13, which reads as follows: – "13. Therefore, in interpreting the statutes if I make harmonious construction of S. 47A read with the Rules made thereunder, it will be read that valuation made by the Court cannot be said to be done not truly set forth and there is any reason to disbelieve, otherwise. If any authority does so it will tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction made under the law. The authority concerned cannot sit on appeal over a Court decision unless appeal is preferred from such order which is absent herein."
12. It appears that the learned Civil Judge and the High Court only referred to the headnote in Nitya Hari Kundu's case (supra), which reads as follows: "Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S.47-A-Valuation of duty under S.47-A- Valuation made by Court and sale deed sent for Registration S.47A is not applicable- After determination of value by Court, it cannot be said that there is reason for Registrar to believe that valuation is not correctly made – Registrar is bound by that valuation and has to act upon it." ADDL.DISTI.SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURI v. PAWAN KUMAR VERMA [KURIAN, J.]
13. The court had, in fact, fixed the market value of the property in that case for permitting the Trust estate to put it to sale. However, without reference to the court; it appears that the Collector made an independent assessment and that was what was struck down by the court. Once the court had made the exercise to fix the market value of a property, the same can be reopened or altered only in a process known to law. That is not the situation in the instant case where a partition suit was filed in the year 1999, compromised in the year 2001, stamp value assessed on the basis', of suit valuation and the decree presented for registration in t.he year 2007. c
14. Market value forthe purpose of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not the same as suit valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. The procedures are different for assessment of the stamp duty and for registration of an instrument. The reference to the expression 'on the basis of any court decision. after hearing the State Government' appearing in Rule 3 of The West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001, would clearly show that the suit valuation cannot be automatically followed for the purpose of registration. The learned Civil Judge has, thus, clearly erred in directing the registration to be done on the basis of suit valuation. The Sheristadar made a mechanical assessment of stamp duty on 1/4th share of the suit property as per the compromise and fixed the stamp duty accordingly for Rs.12,50,000/-. That does not meet the requirement under law.
15. The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 operate in different fields. However, going by the scheme of the Act and Rules as amended by West Bengal, we are of the view that it will only be appropriate that in such situations where the registering authority has any difference of opinion as to assessment on the stamp duty of the instrument presented for registration on the orders of the court, it will only be appropriate that Registrar makes a back reference to the court concerned and the court undertakes a fresh exercise after A affording an opportunity of hearing to the registering authority with regard to the proper value of the instrument for registration. The registering authority cannot be compelled to follow invariably the value fixed by the court for the purpose of suit valuation.
16. Accordingly, we set aside 1he impugned order dated 02.09.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta and order dated 30.03.2001 of the learned Civil Judge, Siliguri and order dated 27.08.2007 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri. The court C of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri shall consider afresh the matter after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the stamp duty for the purpose of registration of the partition deed. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. D Appeal is allowed.
17. There is no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.