Equivalent engineering qualification recognised for valuer registration, but no enforceable right to appointment under the Estate Duty scheme.

An associate member of the Institution of Engineers (India) placed in the civil division by exemption from Sections A and B was treated as possessing an equivalent qualification for registration as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act, so refusal to register him was unsustainable. The Court also stated that the Estate Duty Act scheme did not create an enforceable individual right to appointment as a valuer, since appointment depended on the Government's assessment of need and sufficiency of qualified persons. On the facts, the petitioner further did not meet the later notification requirement for a civil engineering qualification, so the claim under the Estate Duty Act failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, being an associate member of the Institution of Engineers (India) in the civil division by exemption from the sectional examinations, possessed the qualification required for registration as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act; (ii) Whether the petitioner had a right to be appointed as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, being an associate member of the Institution of Engineers (India) in the civil division by exemption from the sectional examinations, possessed the qualification required for registration as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act.

Analysis: The relevant rule required either a degree in civil engineering, architecture or town planning, or a qualification recognised by the Union Public Service Commission as equivalent to such a degree. The material before the Court showed that the petitioner had been placed in the civil division of the Institution of Engineers (India) by exemption from Sections A and B, and that such qualification was treated as equivalent for employment purposes. The Court accepted that this satisfied the requirement of equivalence under the rule.

Conclusion: The petitioner was qualified for registration as a valuer of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act, and the refusal to register him was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had a right to be appointed as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 4(3) empowered the Central Government to appoint a sufficient number of qualified persons as valuers according to its assessment of necessity. The Court held that this did not confer an enforceable right to appointment on any individual. On the facts, the petitioner also did not satisfy the requirement for a valuer of immovable property under the later notification, since he held a degree in electrical engineering and not civil engineering.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable claim to appointment as a valuer of immovable property under the Estate Duty Act, and that claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of the Wealth-tax Act registration, while the challenge to the Estate Duty Act refusal did not succeed.

---