Ravinder Gulati v. State

2.8. Then on 7th December, 2020, this Court disposed of I.A. NO. 15785/2019 in the following terms: “7. Given the foregoing and having regard to the prayer made in the ` application as also the material placed before the Court consisting of sale deeds (PW 1/5 to PW 1/13) and valuation reports (PW 1/14 and PW 1/15) the matter should be placed before the concerned collector in the first instance for arriving at the correct valuation qua the M.B. property. It is ordered accordingly. 7.[1] While conducting this exercise, as indicated in prayer clause (3) of the captioned application, the concerned Collector will also be entitled to take into consideration registered sale deeds relating to "comparable instances".

8. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9. The concerned Collector will carry out the aforesaid exercise within three weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

9.1. The concerned Collector, I am told is the Assistant Collector Grade 1, Sub Division (Defence Colony), District South-East, New Delhi.

10. The Registry will, accordingly, transmit the order passed today to the concerned Collector via email at the following email address: "defencesdm@nic.in”

11. Before reaching any conclusion in the matter the concerned Collector will give due opportunity to the petitioner and/or his authorised representative to put forth his case. 11.[1] In case the concerned Collector disagrees with the valuation given by the petitioner, he will furnish his reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. 11.[2] The concerned collector will ensure that the valuation report is placed on record of this court before the next date of hearing.”

2.9. In terms of the aforenoted order, Petitioner placed evidence before the Assistant Collector comprising of the sale deeds, the valuer’s report, and judgments of this Court.

2.10. The Assistant Collector, on consideration of the said material, passed an order/Report dated 8th January, 2021 and rejected the contentions of the Petitioner, by making observations to the following effect: “1. The Hon'ble Court had directed vide order dated 7.12.2020 that the concerned Collector will also be entitled to take into consideration registrated sale deeds relating to "compareable instances" in respect of Property bearing No. H-7, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.

2. Accordingly the petitioner was requested vide notice dated 22.12.2020 to appear before the undersigned on or before 31.12.2020 and submit relevant documents. `

3. In response to this, the petitioner appeared and submitted 8 sale deeds (Details enclosed as annexure "A") comparable to his property. According to the sale deeds submitted by the petitioner, the stamp duty paid on these sale deeds is on the basis of the circle rate applicable for the properties falls in the "A" category i.e., land rate is Rs. 7,74,000/- per Sq. Mtrs. and construction cost is Rs. 21960/- & not on the basis of claimed consideration amount.

4. It is submitted that in the past the vendor/purchasers of properties were having unguided choice to fix any amount towards market value of the properties under sale and in order to check/contain the said arbitrary practices of the general public as well as to limit the wide discretionary power of the collector, the government has notified the specific circle rates on the basis of legislative deliberation in the public interest and tomsafe guard the government revenue. Once the said circle rates notified, the rates of the property of a particular area became the substantially yardstick to determine the value of the said property which is a tool to determine the market value of the properties uniformly. The circle rates are required to offer guidance to the Registering officer while deciding the matter with regard to determination of the true value of the property. In absence of the circle rates, mammoth undervaluation of the properties to avoid payment of appropriate ad valorem stamp duty resulted. Therefore, Circle rates serve as the indices available to the Registering Officer to have the reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument/ document. Further, for the determination of the circle rates, the Appropriate Authority undertakes a prescribed exercise. Therefore, there is extensive application of mind in the determination of the circle rates. The valuation has been reassessed and found that the valuation is the same (copy of the valuation report filed earlier is enclosed)

5. The report is submitted for kind consideration please.” (sic)

3. Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, counsel for the Petitioner, aggrieved by the observations made by the Assistant Collector, by way of the instant application, refutes the valuation done by the Collector and seeks determination of true value by making following submissions:

3.1. For the purpose of probate, the Court Fee is payable on the ‘value’ of the property and not ‘circle rate value’. Reliance was placed on several provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Succession Act’], including but not limited to Sections ` 57(c), 213, 300, 276 and 289.

3.2. Reliance was also placed on Schedule VI of the Act to submit that the Order passed by this Court on 14th November, 2019 is only a direction for grant of probate. The probate is granted of the Will annexed, only upon the payment of the requisite Court Fee.

3.3. In terms of Article 11 of Schedule I of the Act, Court Fee is payable at 4% of the “value of the immovable property”. The said provision does not mention ‘circle rate value’ or ‘value determined by the State/ Revenue Authority’. In the instant case, the valuation on 14th November, 2019 [being the date of the order granting probate], as reported by the Respondent vide its Valuation Report dated 14th February, 2019, is disputed.

3.4. The dispute with respect to valuation of a property should be resolved in the manner provided under Section 19H of the Act. Vide order dated 14th November, 2019, this Court permitted the Petitioner to bring in evidence in support of its valuation claim. In compliance thereof, evidence was adduced as Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex. PW 1/17. The Respondent–State chose not to lead any evidence in rebuttal, or crossexamine the Petitioner’s witness, or controvert the evidence adduced. In these circumstances, the valuation furnished by the Petitioner ought to be accepted and considered as a true valuation of the property.

3.5. This Court, under Section 19H (5), directed an enquiry by the Collector on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Petitioner. The Collector vide his Report dated 8th January, 2021 merely reiterated the circle rate valuation – solely for the reason that the circle rates are ` notified after extensive and scientific study of the real estate market. This report does not show any application of mind and is not pursuant to any enquiry that was required to be conducted in terms of Section 19H to determine the ‘true value’ of the property.

3.6. The Collector has failed to appreciate the intent behind the order dated 7th December, 2020. He was directed to determine the value of the subject property and further call for comparable sale data. Instead, he simply relied upon the legislative wisdom behind the circle rate notifications.

3.7. The Collector ought to have determined the value of the property in light of the material placed on record by the Petitioner, which included certain registered sale deeds. The observation made by the Collector to the effect that the Stamp Duty has been paid on the basis of the circle rate, irrespective of the sale consideration being much lower than the circle rate, is in complete ignorance of the dicta of this Court in Manu Narang v. The Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.[1]

3.8. Court fee (a judicial stamp) is fundamentally different from stamp duty (a non-judicial stamp). While stamp duty on registration of transfer of right/title and interest in immovable properties is charged by the State Government under Entry 66 of List II of Constitution of India, Court Fees for the High Court is chargeable under Entry 3 of List II of Constitution of India. Therefore, the legislative power for enacting laws providing for court fee and stamp duty flow from entirely different entries in List II of the Constitution. (2016) 226 DLT 1. `

3.9. While stamp duty is the revenue that is collected by the State, which could be appropriated and applied towards any other general expense, Court Fee does not tantamount to ‘revenue’ in that sense, and is merely collected as a service fee for the dispensation of justice – utilised only to offset the costs of administration of civil justice.

3.10. In terms of sub-section (g) of Section 19H, the Court is empowered to reject the Collector’s report if it is satisfied that it is erroneous, and thereupon, record a finding vis-à-vis the true valuation of the property.

3.11. The certified copies of registered sale deeds of nearby properties, as placed on record, prove that between September 2017 to June 2019, the cost of land for immovable properties in Maharani Bagh ranged from Rs. 5,03,990.92 sq. m. to Rs. 97,873.80 sq. m. The sale transaction where the cost of land was the lowest (at Rs. 97,873.80 sq. m.) pertains specifically to a basement, and thus, is to be ignored. If the other sale deeds are taken into consideration, the highest land cost is adopted and applied to the subject property, its value would not be more than Rs. 35.03 crores. However, the valuation report dated 14th February, 2019, erroneously reports the market value of the said subject property at Rs. 53.08 crores.

3.12. On the basis of the evidence on record and the observations made by this Court in Manu Narang (supra), the inevitable conclusion would be that the valuation provided by the Petitioner, i.e., Rs. 34.76 crores be accepted.

3.13. The circle rate notified cannot be adopted by this Court for the purpose of payment of court fees. The circle rate notifications issued ` by GNCTD are issued for the purpose of the determination of stamp duty payable on registration of immovable properties. These cannot be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the court fee payable, when there is a dispute regarding the valuation of the immovable property. The distinction between court fee and tax has been abundantly dealt with by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, such as Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. The State of Bihar & Ors.,[2] P.M. Aswathanarayana Setty & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,[3] and Secretary for Govt. of Madras v. PR Sriramulu & Anr.[4]

3.14. The affidavit filed in this Court on 15th March, 2021 by the Petitioner, undertaking to pay the court fee on the valuation of the subject property in terms of the Notification of GNCTD dated 26th February 2021 [relaxing the minimum rates (Circle rates) for valuation of lands and immovable properties in Delhi], was without prejudice to Petitioner’s rights and contentions relating to valuation. The Petitioner never disputed the legal position that court fees is payable on the valuation of a property as on the date of the petition, if such valuation is available, or, on the valuation as on the date of the order granting probate.

3.15. The valuation claimed by the Petitioner on the basis of the valuation report dated 27th May, 2018 issued by a Government approved valuer (marked as Ex. PW1/16), is to be accepted as the true value of the subject property.

1996(1) SCC 345. `

3.16. The rates of the period of 2014 are inapplicable for determining the true valuation in 2019.

3.17. Even in cases arising out of land acquisition, the compensation payable to the person whose land is acquired is, at all times, by default, determined by the land acquisition officer on the basis of the sale transactions that had been registered just prior to the acquisition notification. This method of culling out the data from sale transactions in the area, to arrive at a particular value for the immovable property, has been adopted by courts of law as the most prudent method.

4. Per contra, Ms. Saumya Tandon, Panel Counsel for GNCTD, controverts the contentions of the Petitioner and makes the following submissions:

4.1. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to recall his earlier statement. The probate has been granted on 14th November, 2019. In terms of the dicta of this Court in Praveena Bhardwaj v. State & Ors.,[5] the court fees had to be paid on the valuation of the properties as on that date. Furthermore, the Petitioner has admitted and specifically averred that this Court had granted the probate in the present petition on 14th November, 2019, as recorded in – paragraphs 2 and 7 of I.A. NO. 1573/2021, paragraph 10 of I.A. No. 9572/2021, and paragraphs 2 and 10 of his affidavit dated 15th March, 2021.

4.2. The determination of ‘true value’ of property by the Respondent vide ILR (1975) 1 Delhi 151. ` Report dated 8th January, 2021 was not under Section 19H of the Act. Rather, this was in terms of the prayer made by the Petitioner in I.A. No. 15785/2019, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter, ‘CPC’], which was disposed of vide order dated 7th December, 2020.

4.3. The first valuation report of the Respondent, dated 14th February, 2019 was submitted before this Court based on the circle rates determined vide notification of the GNCTD dated 22nd September,

2014. The second valuation Report dated 8th January, 2021 noted above, wherein the contents of the first report were reiterated, was filed after thorough examination of the evidence provided by the Petitioner, wherein it was discovered that the parties to the registered sale deeds had chosen to disclose the ‘true value’ of the properties, in accordance with the circle rates determined vide notification dated 22nd September, 2014, which was different from the transactional value recorded in the sale deeds.

4.4. The Petitioner only produced the aforenoted sale deeds as evidence, which are of no avail. It was discovered that the parties to the registered sale deeds (Ex.PW 1/5 to Ex. PW 1/13) had chosen to disclose the true value of the properties in accordance with the circle rates determined vide notification dated 22nd September 2014, which was different from the transaction value recorded in the said deeds, despite having opportunity to disclose a lesser value and challenge the valuation based on circle rates in terms of Sections 47 and 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the decision in Amit Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2016) 229 DLT 385. `

4.5. The instant application is liable to be dismissed as Section 19H of the Act does not give any right to the Petitioner to challenge the valuation report filed by the Respondent. Only Respondent has the right to move the Court for holding an inquiry into the true value of the property. Unless the said right is exercised by the Respondent, the valuation so submitted must be held to reflect the true value of the property. In terms of the said provision, valuation report of the Respondent is placed on a higher footing than the valuation report submitted by the Petitioner.

4.6. The report of the Collector warrants no interference. The Collector has appreciated the legislative intent and the rationale behind the circle rates, which were introduced to guide the vendors/ purchasers of the properties to fix an amount towards market value of the properties under sale and in order to check and curtail the arbitrary practices of the general public, so as to limit the discretionary power of the Collector.

4.7. There is non-compliance of the requirement under Section 276(1)(d) of the Succession Act, read with Rules 1 and 7 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as ‘DHC Rules’]. Under the said provisions, the Petitioner was required to furnish the valuation of the amount of assets which were likely to come to the Petitioner’s hand. Despite knowing that the Petitioner was to receive the probate in respect of the suit property under the Will, the mandate of the provision was not fulfilled. ` FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

5. The Collector’s valuation report dated 8th January 2021 stipulates that, upon application of the circle rates of the area as notified on 22nd September 2014, the valuation of the suit property would be Rs. 53,07,89,472/-. As against this, the Petitioner has produced evidence in the form of sale deeds in support of his claim that the market value of the suit property is Rs. 34,75,87,000/-. This difference in valuation is the crux of the issue before the court today, as it determines the amount of court fee payable by the Petitioner for grant of probate. What would be the relevant date for the purpose of valuation for payment of court fees?

6. Court fee is payable as on the date of grant of probate. Thus, the relevant date would be the date on which the probate was granted by this Court. The present petition was allowed in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 14th November, 2019. The actual issuance of the probate or letters of administration by the office is purely an administrative act, and therefore inconsequential. For this reason, the Petitioner’s submission that the Government has undertaken the exercise to revise the circle rates and has reduced the same by 20% with effect from 26th February, 2021 is of no relevance. If the real estate in Delhi has depreciated in 2020-21, that would not be of any assistance, as the same is post the date of grant of probate. ` What is the effect of non-compliance of filing of affidavit under DHC Rules?

7. Under Section 276 (1) (d) of the Succession Act, the Petitioner was required to disclose the amount of assets which are likely to come to the Petitioner’s hands. In addition, Rules 1 and 7 of Chapter XXIX of the DHC Rules – which came into force on 1st March, 2018 – require the Petitioner to submit an affidavit of valuation of the assets of the deceased along with the petition. In absence therefore, the Registry of this court is not to receive an application for grant of probate. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the mandate of the aforenoted provisions by not filing any such affidavit.

8. The contention of the Petitioner is that the relevant part of the DHC Rules had not come into force on 1st March, 2018 along with the rest of the Rules. This is factually incorrect. The relevant rules came into force on the afore-noted date. In the opinion of the Court, the aforenoted contention is even otherwise without merit, as the mandate of the Succession Act, as provided under Section 276 (1) (d) obligated the Petitioner to disclose the amount of assets which were likely to come to the Petitioner’s hands. There is no doubt that the Petitioner was bequeathed the property at H-7, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi under the Will dated 8th July, 2008 and, therefore, he was required to give an affidavit of valuation of the property along with the petition.

9. The Full Bench of this Court, while deciding a reference in Praveena Bhardwaj (supra) has inter alia observed that: “the Petitioner has to state in the petition, the amounts of assets which are likely to come to his hands as required by Section 276 (1) (d) and (3) of ` the Succession Act. He has further to file in Court, either along with the application or at a later stage, a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule to the Court Fees Act as required by Section 19-I (1) of the Act. The said valuation has to be verified by the Collector and, if necessary, the Court has to determine the valuation on a motion by the Collector as provided in Section 19-H of the Court-fees Act. This proceeding regarding the valuation may take place simultaneously with the proceedings in the Court for the giant of probate or letters of administration.”

10. Nevertheless, it was also observed therein that in the order granting probate, the court may fix reasonable time for the petitioner to get the valuation finalized, and pay the court fee mentioned in Article 11 of the First Schedule to the Court Fees Act on such valuation. Thus, even if the Petitioner did not file the valuation of the property at the initial stage, it does not render the petition to be non est.

11. Much water has flown under the bridge. The Court has already granted a probate in favour of the Petitioner. The non-compliance of the Rules, at this stage, is inconsequential. Regardless, on account of the procedural infirmity in the course of conducting enquiry for determination of the true value of the suit property, as envisaged under Section 19H of the Act, the effect thereof is discussed hereinbelow. What is the scope of the proceedings under Section 19H of the Act?

12. The dispute regrading valuation has to be determined by the Court – as provided under Section 19H of the Act, which reads as under: “19H. Notice of applications for probate or letters of administration to be given to Revenue authorities, and procedure thereon.— (1) Where an application for probate or letters of administration is made to any Court other than a High Court, the Court shall cause notice of the ` application to be given to the Collector. (2) Where such an application as aforesaid is made to a High Court, the High Court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority for the local area in which the High Court is situated. (3) The Collector within the local limits of whose revenue-jurisdiction the property of the deceased or any part thereof is, may at any time inspect or cause to be inspected, and take or cause to be taken copies of, the record of any case in which application for probate or letters of administration has been made; and if, on such inspection or otherwise, he is of opinion that the petitioner has under-estimated the value of the property of the deceased, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, require the attendance of the petitioner (either in person or by agent) and take evidence and inquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit, and, if he is still of opinion that the value of the property has been under-estimated, may require the petitioner to amend the valuation. (4) If the petitioner does not amend the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector, the Collector may move the Court before which the application for probate or letters of administration was made, to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property: Provided that no such motion shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of the exhibition of the inventory required by section 277 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865 (10 of 1865), or as the case may be, by section 98 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881 (5 of 1881). (5) The Court, when so moved as aforesaid, shall hold, or cause to be held, an inquiry accordingly, and shall record a finding as to the true value, as near as may be, at which the property of the deceased should have been estimated. The Collector shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry. (6) For the purposes of any such inquiry, the Court or person authorised by the Court to hold the inquiry may examine the petitioner for probate or letters of administration on oath (whether in person or by commission), and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the property. The person authorised as aforesaid to hold the inquiry shall return to the Court the evidence taken by him and report the result of the inquiry, and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceeding, and the Court may record a finding in accordance with the report, unless it is satisfied that it is erroneous. ` (7) The finding of the Court recorded under sub-section (5) shall be final, but shall not bar the entertainment and disposal by the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority of any application under section 19E. (8) The State Government may make rules for the guidance of Collectors in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3).” [emphasis supplied]

13. Upon an appraisal of the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the procedure envisaged under Section 19H of the Act was not strictly followed. Is the right of challenge restricted to the Collector/ State?

14. This scheme is premised upon Petitioner giving its valuation at the first instance. At the same time, the provision casts a mandatory duty for this Court to notify the Chief Revenue Controlling Revenue Authority, when an application seeking probate or letters of administration is filed. The State is empowered by the Act to question the valuation stated by the Petitioner and also raise a dispute and move the Court for an enquiry into the ‘true valuation’. The aforesaid statute vests a right in the State to ask the Petitioner to amend his valuation, if the Authority is of the belief that the Petitioner has underestimated the value of the property. In the event of a dispute regarding the valuation, the issue has to be adjudicated by the courts. Now in the instant case, notwithstanding the fact that the provision was not followed stricto sensu, a dispute has certainly arisen regarding the valuation of the property, which has to be enquired into by this Court.

15. The ground taken by the Respondent – that the legislature does not expressly provide any such right under the statute – cannot be agreed with. ` Under Section 19H (5), judicial enquiry is contemplated in the event of a dispute regarding the valuation of the property, in order to determine the ‘true valuation’ of the property. The determination effects both the parties i.e., the Petitioner as well as the State. State’s role in the probate petition, for the purpose of collection of court fee, is to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. But, the court fee has to be paid by the Petitioner. Therefore, if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the report of the Collector, he certainly has the right to challenge the same. The decision of the Collector cannot be immune to challenge, or else the legislature would not have provided for a judicial determination of the same. The ultimate decision on valuation, as per the scheme of the Act, rests with the Court in the event of difference of opinion between the Petitioner and the State.

16. Although, the State may be right, to the extent that the valuation report called upon from the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority is on a higher footing than the valuation submitted by the Petitioner, as the State is expected to be fair and reasonable and take a non-partisan and unbiased view. However, to give complete immunity to such a report, or to read Section 19H of the Act in a manner so as to deprive the Petitioner of a right to challenge the valuation – would be in complete violation to the concepts of equity, fair play and natural justice.

17. For these reasons, the Court is unable to agree that Petitioner does not have the right to question the valuation. ` Has Petitioner produced cogent material to support its valuation?

18. “True value” – an expression which finds mention in Section 19H, means something which is the actual value, which is not hypothetical, whimsical or guess work. In other words, it means the value of the property as determined by the market forces; the price that a property may fetch if sold in the open market under ideal conditions, unaffected by the special needs of the seller or purchaser. The transactional value may represent the actual value in some situations, or it may be highly depressed. When this court receives applications for offering immoveable properties as security, the parties invariably furnish valuation reports which determine that the market value of the same is much more that what is reflected in the sale deeds, and in some cases, more than the valuation as per circle rates. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the vendor/ purchaser of the property may have transacted by undervaluing the property. That the approach adopted by the Collector was the most prudent method, remains unrefuted.

19. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the evidence in support of its valuation has not been examined by the Collector in the right perspective. In the opinion of the Court, there is no merit in this objection. The Collector has indeed looked into the sale deeds brought on record as evidence by the Petitioner. The Collector has observed that the ‘true value’ of the properties (which were the subject-matter of the sale deeds so produced) were based on the circle rates. The parties to the instrument have paid Stamp Duty on the said value, and not the transactional amount recorded in such deeds. The ` instruments were not found to be undervalued, and this is the reason the State did not take any action for impounding the same as per the procedure established under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1925 as applicable to Delhi. No doubt, the consideration amount/ transactional value in the sale deeds is less than the circle rates, however that singularly cannot be the test to hold that the transaction value is the ‘true value’ of the property. Since the parties to those transactions chose to pay the Stamp Duty on the circle rates and did not take a stand that the transactional value is indeed the ‘true value’ of the property, the same cannot be considered to be credible evidence of the ‘true value’ of the adjacent properties in the instant case. Therefore, this evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not support its case; rather, it supports the Respondent’s stand that the ‘true value’ of the property is one which is based on circle rates.

20. Apart from the Sale Deeds in question and a self serving valuation by the approved valuer, the Petitioner has not presented any other material or evidence before the Collector. Would the Circle Rates determined by the GNCTD under Rule 4 of the Delhi Stamp (Undervaluation and Instrument) Rules, 2007 be the final word on valuation?

21. The Respondent has relied upon the rationale behind the circle rates. The same is of significance, and merits mentioning at this juncture. The circle rates for Delhi were first introduced in 2007, vide Rule 4 of the Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2007, to guide the vendors/purchasers of the properties to fix an amount towards market ` value of the property under sale, and in order to check/curtail the arbitrary practices of the general public, as well as to limit the wide discretionary power of Collector. The Government notified specific circle rates on the basis of the legislative deliberation and by undertaking a scientific exercise, undertaken in public interest and in order to safeguard the State’s revenue. Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules stipulates, as under: “(3) the valuation so fixed by the Government shall act as guide/indicator for the purpose of assessing the duty chargeable on the value or the consideration of any immovable property”.

22. A Division Bench of this Court, in Manu Narang (supra), while examining the challenge laid to Rule 4 of the 2007 Rules and the Notification issued by GNCTD dated 22nd September, 2014 issued under the aforenoted Rules, examined Section 47A of the Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi. It was observed that the stamp duty payable on a transfer document need not always be in accordance with the prescribed circle rates; if the valuation for Stamp Duty is below the circle rates, the procedure as prescribed under Section 47A is to be followed. In the light of the same, it was inter alia observed that notwithstanding anything contained in the aforementioned circular of GNCTD, in the event the consideration mentioned in the instrument/ transfer document is less than the valuation as per the prescribed circle rates, the Registrar/ Sub-Registrar entrusted with the responsibility of registration shall follow the procedure prescribed under Section 47A, and shall call upon the Collector of Stamp for determination of value or consideration, as the case may be.

23. From the above, it is clear that the circle rates prescribed by GNCTD ` can only serve as a guide for assessing the value of the property. In the event a question arises regarding the determination of value, the Collector has to proceed in accordance with law, including Section 27 of the Stamp Act. Did the exercise carried out by the Collector for determining the true value of the property require a different approach for the purpose of payment of Court fees?

24. The Petitioner has laid much emphasis that court fees is fundamentally different from stamp duty. There, indeed, no doubt about this proposition. The power to enact laws for providing court fees and stamp duty flow from entirely different entries in List 2 of the Constitution of India. However, this distinction between the two levies is not relevant for deciding the present application, as the question before the Court is essentially one relating to the valuation of the property. The rate of court fees under Article 11 of Schedule I of the Act, prescribes the rate which is linked with the value of the property. The valuation contemplated under 19H of the Act is also for determining the true value. The Government has assessed the valuation of the property on the basis of the circle rates, whether it is for the purpose of stamp duty or for court fees. There is no separate procedure prescribed in law to assess the value of land/property by the Government for the purpose of calculation of the court fees. Further, it must be remembered that the court fees for grant of probate, which is linked to the valuation, is an ad valorem court fee, interlinked with the true/market value of the property. This court fee is charged towards the probate certificate and is different from that which is paid on the application seeking ` probate. Thus, the procedure prescribed under the Delhi Stamp Rules and the notification of minimum rates for valuation issued by the Government would be relevant for the purpose of finding out the true/market value for the purpose of payment of court fees in the probate petition.

CONCLUSION

25. In view of the foregoing, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector’s valuation of the probate property as determined vide report dated 14th February, 2019 reflects its ‘true value’. The Petitioner is required to pay appropriate Court Fees on the said valuation.

26. In view of the above, the Court does not find any merit in the contention in the present application, and accordingly the same is dismissed.