Patna High Court - OrdersM/S Nlbd Marketing Pvt.Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 January, 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CWJC No.5747 of 2009
              M/S NLBD Marketing Private Limited, having its office at 7, Ganesh
              Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, through its Manager
              Sushil Kumar Saraf, son of Late Sambhu Nath Saraf.          -Petitioner.

                                       VERSUS

             1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Inspector General of
                Registration, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition,
                Government of Bihar, Patna.
             2. Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration,
                Excise and Prohibition (Registration), Government of Bihar, Patna.
             3. Registrar cum District Magistrate, Gaya.
             4. District Sub-Registrar, Gaya.
             5. M/s National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa)
                Limited, a Government of India undertaking, having its registered office at
                7, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013, through its General Manager
                (Technical).
             6. The Company Secretary, M/s National Textile Corporation (West Bengal,
                Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Limited, a Government of India undertaking,
                having its registered office at 7, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013.
                                                                           -Respondents.
                                           -----------
                         For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
                                               Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad.
                                               Mr. Tej Bahadur Roy.
                                               Mr. Ashish Giri.
                      For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to Advocate General.
                                           -----------

04   14.01.2010There was an incorporated Company, namely, Gaya

                      Cotton and Jute Mills Limited. In due course of time, it became

                      sick. Government of India nationalized it by statutory Act. The

                      properties then vested in the National Textile Corporation Limited,

                      a Government of India undertaking.           The National Textile

                      Corporation having found that substantial lands were surplus and

                      useless, they issued a global tender for sale of substantial lands of

                      the erstwhile Gaya Cotton and Jute Mills Limited. Petitioner gave

                      his tender and then was called upon to participate in the public

                      auction. Petitioner, in the said public auction, agreed to purchase-2-29.30 acres of lands at the maximum bid of Rs.9.02 crores. Thus,

having paid the consideration, a deed of conveyance was duly

executed and then presented for registration before the Sub-

Registrar, Gaya.   In purported exercise of powers underSection

47Aof the Stamp Act, the Sub-Registrar noticed the petitioner that

the value as shown appeared to be far less than value of similar

land in similar locality.     As per the guidelines, register of

minimum value fixed under the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under

Value and Instruments) Rules, 1995 and unless the petitioner

agrees to enhance the value for the purpose of registration and pay

duty thereon, the document would not be registered. The matter

thus in terms of the Section aforesaid was referred to the Collector

of the district, who is the Registrar of instruments as well. The

petitioner's documents not being registered, he was in a precarious

position. Having paid a substantial money in a public auction and

purchased the property, he could not get the title to the said

property and, as such, could not utilize the said property. He has,

thus, filed this writ application challenging the action of the State

in this regards. The stand of the respondent-State initially was that

as per the guideline, minimum registration value (market value) of

such a land ought to be about Rs.19.92 crores.Learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that

prima facie this was incorrect and he is not liable for payment of

duty on any other value other than as disclosed in the deed of

conveyance. He firstly submitted that the value as calculated by-3-the Collector was on basis of the guideline of registration which

had twice undergone revision since the transaction and it is those

rates subsequently specified which were being taken into account.

The second and more pertinent objection was that the guideline of

registration fixing market value is only a guideline and the values

are calculated on basis of small portions of lands which are sold.

That value cannot be taken into account for large chunks of land

which is an issue settled by numerous judgments of the Supreme

Court in such valuation matters under theLand Acquisition Act.

His third and potent objection was that there was no question of

under valuation, inasmuch as, the sale had been made by a

statutory authority in a public auction and that was the best price

that any person offered. Market price would be the price on which

a ready seller is willing to sell his property and willing buyer is

ready to purchase. That may vary in various contingencies.

Reliance was placed on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the

case ofV.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officersince

reported in 2009(4) PLJR 52 (SC) wherein under some what

similar circumstances, land was sold by statutory authority and a

similar plea was taken with reference toSection 47Aof the Stamp

Act. The Apex Court held that when a statutory authority sells a

property then provisions ofSection 47Aof the Stamp Act would

not at all be attracted.In fairness to the learned counsel for the State, I must

note that being confronted with the aforesaid challenges and the-4-ruling of the Apex Court aforesaid, he very fairly conceded that he

          is unable to sustain the action of the Collector.     The deed of

          conveyance has to be permitted to be registered for the

          consideration shown therein without reference toSection 47Aof

          the Act.In view of the fair stand taken, it is not for me now to

          decide various issues as raised which have now become academic.

          The writ application must thus succeed. Consequently, a writ of

          mandamus be issued to the respondents not to object to the

          registered deed for the consideration therein and proceedings with

          reference to Section 47A are held to be wholly without

          jurisdiction. Consequently, the Bank guarantee furnished by the

          petitioner, pursuant to interim orders of this Court, stands duly

          discharged without any liability.The writ application, thus, stands disposed of.Trivedi                    (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)