Chief Revenue Controlling Officer cum Inspector General of Registration, & Ors. Vs. P. Babu [Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 18676-18677/2018]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Chief Revenue Controlling Officer cum Inspector General of Registration & Ors. vs. P. Babu [Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2025 @ SLP (C) Nos. 18676-18677/2018], delivered its judgment on January 3, 2025, concerning the procedural safeguards and jurisdictional limits in stamp duty valuation under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Facts and Background
The case arose from two Sale Deeds executed in 2000 and 2002, where the respondent, P. Babu, purchased property at declared values significantly lower than the market value. The Joint Sub-Registrar referred the documents to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for reassessment of stamp duty based on market value. The Collector issued orders enhancing the stamp duty payable, which were challenged by the respondent.
The Inspector General of Registration dismissed the respondent’s statutory appeal, but the Madras High Court allowed the respondent’s Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 47-A(10) of the Stamp Act, quashing the Collector’s valuation orders on grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
The scope of the Registering Officer’s and Collector’s powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
The procedural requirements and safeguards, including the duty to provide reasons and afford hearing before enhancing stamp duty.
Whether the Registering Officer can refuse or delay registration based on undervaluation suspicion.
The correctness of the High Court’s quashing of the valuation orders.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court emphasized that registration of documents is mandatory and cannot be refused or delayed by the Registering Officer merely due to suspicion of undervaluation. The Registering Officer’s role is to refer the matter to the Collector for valuation determination, not to conduct an independent inquiry or refuse registration.
The Collector, as the prescribed authority, must determine the market value by following due process, including giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the valuation decision. The Court underscored that the phrase “reason to believe” in Section 47-A(1) does not equate to subjective satisfaction; the belief must be bona fide and based on material.
The Court found that the High Court rightly quashed the Collector’s orders because of failure to comply with procedural safeguards, including inadequate reasons and denial of hearing, which violated principles of natural justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer and others, upholding the High Court’s decision. The judgment clarifies that:
The Registering Officer cannot refuse or delay registration on undervaluation suspicion but must refer the matter to the Collector.
The Collector must follow due process, provide reasons, and afford hearing before enhancing stamp duty.
Procedural fairness and adherence to statutory rules are paramount in valuation disputes.
Natural justice principles apply strictly in stamp duty assessments under the Indian Stamp Act.
This ruling reinforces procedural integrity and protects property buyers from arbitrary or unfair valuation and stamp duty demands, ensuring transparency and accountability in property registration and taxation processes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments