Court-monitored public auction is outside undervaluation reassessment; registering authority cannot replace the court-approved price.

Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to West Bengal, is confined to cases of genuine undervaluation in conveyances where the declared value may not reflect the true market value. A court-monitored public auction, conducted transparently with competitive bidding and court confirmation of price, is materially different from a private sale and falls outside that undervaluation scheme. The registering authority therefore cannot reopen the court-approved consideration, reassess the market value on a notional higher basis, or demand deficit stamp duty merely because it considers the property capable of fetching more. The High Court's view was affirmed and the auction purchasers retained the benefit of the court-fixed consideration for registration purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to West Bengal, permits the registering authority to reassess the market value and demand deficit stamp duty in respect of an instrument executed pursuant to a court-monitored public auction.

Analysis: Section 47A is aimed at curbing undervaluation in conveyances where the declared consideration may not reflect the real value of the property. That power presupposes a reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth. In a sale conducted through court process or by a receiver after wide publicity and competitive bidding, the transaction is transparent and the court itself fixes and confirms the price on the basis of the material before it. Such a sale is materially different from a private transaction, and the registering authority cannot sit in appeal over the court-approved price or invoke undervaluation merely because it considers the property capable of fetching more. The statutory scheme of Rule 3 of the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001 and the definition of market value do not displace the effect of a bona fide court-monitored auction.

Conclusion: Section 47A does not apply to a public auction conducted under court supervision, and the registering authority cannot reopen the court-approved consideration or demand deficit duty on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeals fail and the High Court's view that the court sale could not be subjected to reassessment under Section 47A is affirmed, leaving the auction purchasers entitled to the benefit of the court-fixed consideration for registration purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: A court-monitored public auction, conducted with transparency and confirmed by the court, is not a case of the kind of undervaluation targeted by Section 47A, so the registering authority lacks jurisdiction to reassess the market value merely to substitute a higher notional price.

---