Undervaluation reference requires prior enquiry; basic value register alone cannot replace independent assessment of market value.

A registering officer may refer an instrument for undervaluation only after forming a reasonable belief based on relevant material, and Rule 3(3) requires a summary enquiry by eliciting the parties' explanation and examining public records before such reference. The note treats this enquiry as a necessary safeguard against mechanical reliance on administrative guidance and against breach of natural justice. It also states that the basic value register is only a guide: it has no statutory conclusiveness and cannot replace an independent assessment of market value, especially where the nature or classification of the property is disputed. The officer must therefore reconsider valuation on the basis of proper enquiry and the factors relevant to value.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the registering officer could refer the documents under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act without first making an enquiry under Rule 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975; (ii) whether reliance on the basic value register alone was sufficient to form the requisite belief that the instruments were undervalued.

Issue (i): Whether the registering officer could refer the documents under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act without first making an enquiry under Rule 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 47-A is attracted only when the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth. That belief must rest on relevant material and cannot be formed on mere suspicion or by mechanically following administrative instructions. Rule 3(3) is complementary to Section 47-A and empowers the registering officer to make a summary enquiry by eliciting information from the parties and examining public records. The word "may" in Rule 3(3) was construed as imposing a duty in cases where the correctness of value is in doubt, because otherwise the rule would be rendered ineffective and the principles of natural justice would be defeated.

Conclusion: The enquiry under Rule 3(3) is mandatory before a reference under Section 47-A can be made, and the impugned reference made without such enquiry was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on the basic value register alone was sufficient to form the requisite belief that the instruments were undervalued.

Analysis: The basic value register may be a relevant guide, but it has no statutory basis and its entries are not conclusive or binding. The registering officer must make an independent assessment, consider the factors in Rule 5, and permit the parties to explain any factual dispute about classification or value. Where the nature of the land itself is in dispute, the register cannot substitute for an enquiry into the actual market value and character of the property.

Conclusion: Reliance on the basic value register alone was insufficient, and the registering officer was required to reconsider valuation afresh after holding an enquiry.

Final Conclusion: The reference already made was quashed, and the registering officer was directed to reconsider valuation and proceed afresh only after conducting the requisite enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference under Section 47-A can be made only after the registering officer forms a reasonable belief on the basis of relevant material obtained through the enquiry contemplated by Rule 3(3), and the basic value register by itself cannot displace that independent statutory assessment.

---