VII 1 VVV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 4*" DAY OF NOVEMBER,
BEFORE E %
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHAn:TA:a.zAéQQbAg'
wan PETITION Nos.33?71-33?72 " * E E 7
3432o~34332/E2910 (ewes)
BETWEEN :
1. Hemachandra
S/0 late Ramu .
Aged abouts59 yevarsv» . if
R/a House'N_O_;--1G __ :
Armstror*;.g F?f6a_d . I _V
Richafids _T"ow'h'--~.. , '
B:;E1_ng.;2|0tfe'435}'5,""E '
2. B.H.~R4ames"n ' A' V *1
S/0 fate H'anVu'Vmai_ah"'
__iAgE.d abo"u-t._V53 years
- 'R/,a,House N0;'44"
:'E'_c.rc5ss, 2'" Stage
_ ""R.a'mm-"Layout, Vijayanagar
..1V%sa'::Ag'_a:_or¢--'05. ..Petitioners
(By Ski: Gykakesh Raj for V.Y. Kumar, Advs.,)
~ AND
The State of Karnataka
Rep by its Secretary
Department of Revenue
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore.
2. The Inspector General of
Registration and Commissioner of
Stamps, Government of Karnataka
Bangalore. 1
3. The Sub--Registrar _
Office of the Sub~Registrar
Kanakapura
Kanakapura Taluk _ _. _
Ramanagara District, _ ..Respondeni:s
(By Sri 5.3. Shahapur, AoAr.,,)
These writ'p1e;t1tioI:i,s fi.I€(§'l:iI1('1.C.I;'}\1'tiC1€S 226 and
227 of the __CGnS€it_1J§ti0n' __of._India,v praying to quash the
notification 1:1atec'i_.12.'2..2'O'Q'€3. is--s11ec£:, by the 2nd respondent
vide Anne2;nre=.-AL’ ‘«1.;__ _ .,
Tiiese “c:o’In_i11g-‘ on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made’ tk_1e’ »foi~1oWing:–
‘=\OkDER
C,iiilbost-iiticmgrsitAvhavve sought for quashing the
iii’notifi¢ar,i’c«iririigiaiitied 12.2.2008 issued by the 2″”
resAp*ond,ent,i’.E~VnAi so far as it fixes the guidance market
“”‘4″w:§1a.lLVr,e irfirespect of the schedule lands situated in
, ‘sy;m7;1 (Sy.Nos.1/30, 1/31, 1/32, 1/33, 1/34, 1/35,
in
13,
1/36, 1/39, 1/40, 1/42, 1/43, 1/44, 1/46, 1/47 and
1/P2), Gullattikaval Village, Harohalli Hiobgli,
Ka nakapura Talu k, Rama naga r Dist’r”i*ct’
?14,4,00,000/~ per acre. They have a|so~V-so§igh’t,::for ”
direction to the third respondent to,reg’iste.r”‘th’eif-sairef
deeds as per the guidance Vi/aiue which warsiiinjvforce in
the year 2005 at ?60,QOO/~ p_ei:r:’a,cr’e_,g
2. The records ire’/e.a|’*.,ttij.a,t ‘4t’n!;_–‘.:’,’;i>etitioners have
entered into an .__agre’e’nie;r:t_:’thesyear 2005 to
purchaf3e%”‘ti’r’fvi,a “‘situa’ted A No. 1 (Sy . Nos. 1/30,
1/31, 1/32,.1%/’3§;f1%/34,,,%’i1./35, 1/36, 1/39, 1/40, 1/42,
1/43,1/44,/111./451,111/47i”and 1/P2), totally measuring
Gulvléttikaval Village, Harohalli Hobii,
Ramanagara District, for a
_ cons’%..de:jationA of ?60,000/- per acre with the land
.Vov~.:ncers.V””..Those lands are belonging to the Scheduled
Caste’: persons inasmuch as they are grantees of the
M
-4-
lands. Thus, the petitioners are the purchasers o_f.__the
lands in question, from the grantees. The
fiied an application before the competentfijaujtholrityiff if
seeking permission to alienate f5cihe’dii_le«, landisignvvlthe
year 2006. The said permbission14’=.’t’ii_tii’i–atti-kaval Village, Harohalli
Hobli, Kan’ai_<4apvura_ ?14,40,000/- per acre.
_..,.$ince«.§.,;hve'~ petitio'*nefS_,.are required to pay the stamp
V'<duty"'and_reg.istration charges based on the present
guicla'nCeV.n.iaj_rl'.;'et value, they have approached this
Court forlseeking aforementioned reliefs.
(M
3. This Court does not find any ground to quash
the notification dated 12.2.2008 issued by the.«jse:c<okn–d'
respondent declaring guidance marketf:'*va.i.geg:*i.,iin'? '
respect of various properties, incl"udingflthep'topVevr.t'iies-,
in question situated in Gu||Vattika'v_a:i–.V_\A./iIlagei"Haro«ha.l.li'~.
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ra'mfianagar'*ijistri.=ct';'1._4'l3'y'the 2
said notification, the:_sieco_jid';_re's_p.on.c|ent'VhAasv merely
fixed the guidance value is
not actuai The actual
marketv_yavlue.V":i'ifia\( guidance value or
less The guidance value is
notified onlyfotieth"e%oujtierice of the public and officers
conc-i3rn__ed, The_rn__ari<et value of the properties to be
'r'eVg'is.tAer_ed have to be arrived at as per the
proviisiooo ofisections 45-A and Section 68 of the
"i..,Stamp_'Atct and the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp
"'liV'_(Pr_ev:ention of Under valuation of Instruments) Rules,
,gggWlg77'
V
4. As could be seen from the impugned
notification itself, it is clear that the said notification is
issued under the provisions of Section 45–HBTof:.f”yth”e_,
Karnataka Stamp Act, r/w.Ruie 7(3) of ”
Stamp (Constitution of Centrai,”\7a’i’uation
for Estimation Pubiication.andit’Re’t<i.sion.y'..".of"
Value Guidelines of Properties»),_ ihe
aforementioned provisioins concerned, to
revise the guidance Fnarket Viiytfhefproperties in
any area, the first prayer
fails and s.amé-'is*iiéjeyc'tied~;_ ' f
5, -in:V'vres–.oect of the second prayer, the
"V"r–ipetiti5on;grs~..are not""e'ntit|ed to any relief. The stamp
to be paid as on the date of the
regi–s_travtion':\..~oVf the sale deed. Mereiy because the
R""'–..V:'agreemvent of sale is entered into between them prior
i._"to'f~ivAe years from the date of the presentation of the
P'
document for registration, the guidance market value
as prescribed on the date of the agreement"fof':.f"sa'ie
cannot be the basis for arriving at a
The market value has to be dete'r'mine_d–.
situation as on the date ofVr.e_gistra.tion. V
According to the 'State
Government without any toovkwfiive Years
for granting permissionto._thV_e: alienate the
property _:t'he"'wp'e'ti'tioner should not
be sadvd'leVd""with olipvayment of more stamp
duty. flee cannot be accepted. The
concerned 'uauvtho.rity"- have to verify and pass
borders;"Eon'%"~«i_merits and in accordance with law.
Ai'The'r_efo're',.v,iV_thetime spent before the Government of
the market value of the properties has to be
determined as on the date of presentation
document for registration, the second pra’y.er.jaVIso”%
cannot be granted.
Hence, writ petitions fai.l_v”‘a..nd a’cc:ord_iVngiifisamei
a re dismissed.