1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT
INDORE

Before Division Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jarat Kumar Jain

W.P. No.1146/2015
Sarch Kumar ......Petitioner.
Vs.
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & another
...Respondents.

Shri Sumeet Nema, learned Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ajay Kakani, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER

(Passed on 21st of September, 2015)
Per: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated
12/12/2014 passed by Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, rejecting application for registration as registered
valuer for immovable properties, plant and machinery.
02) Briefly stated facts of case are that petitioner
Sarch Kumar Kaul had filed application for registration as
a valuer under Section 34-AB of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
3) same was rejected by Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, respondent No.1 and rejection was the
subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.9666/11.
However, this was by order dated 14/05/2015 directed that if
the petitioner submits fresh application along with copy of
2

certificate of academic qualification; then competent
Authority shall pass written order, without being
influenced by rejection. On filing fresh application dated
17/06/2013, application was dismissed by order dated
12/12/2014. Hence present petition.
04) Counsel for petitioner has vehemently urged the
fact that respondent No.1 Commissioner of Income Tax
has erred in holding that petitioner does not possess
qualification required for said registration and that the
Commissioner had failed to consider decision passed by
the Allahabad High Court (110 ITA 549), which was placed
before him. Counsel urged that impugned order was
contrary to ratio laid-down in said case and hence the
order is perverse and contrary to principles of natural
justice.
05) Counsel also vehemently urged that petitioner was
fully eligible since he had requisite qualification of
Bachelor of Engineering having passed Section & B of the
examination of Institute of Engineers, which is a
recognized body of Government of India for purpose
of recruitment under Central Government and hence
Counsel submitted that since petitioner fulfills all the
prescribed qualifications under Rule 2 & 8, respondent
No.1 has erred in dismissing/rejecting application of the
petitioner. order suffers from legal infirmities and is
3

liable to be quashed and Counsel prayed that petition be
allowed. Counsel also submitted that there is no alternative
remedy, except by approaching this Court by present
Writ Petition. To bolster his submissions, Counsel for the
petitioner has relied on decision of Allahabad High
Court, passed in case of S.K. Ahuja vs. Central Board
of Direct Taxes reported in 1977 Income Tax Reports
Vol. 110 page 549, whereby Court has held thus:
case of petitioner is that he possesses
qualifications which are recognized by Public
Service Commission as equivalent to degree in civil
engineering or architecture. In paragraph 29 of the
petition it is averred that petitioner is holder of
diploma granted by Institution of Engineers
(India), Calcutta, and is Member in Civil
Engineering Division which is equivalent to degree
in civil engineering.
Counsel has also relied on decision of Gujarat High
Court in case of Institutions of Valuers vs. Union of
India (Special Civil Application No.9762 of 2001).
Firstly Court has considered question whether
the second qualification prescribed under sub-rule (2) of rule
8A of rules concerned should be post-graduate in
valuation of real estate from recognized university. In this
regard it may be germane to refer to regulations of the
Sardar Patel University referred in case of S.K. Ahuja
(Supra) for Post Graduate Programme for Master in
valuation and Counsel submitted that graduate degree in civil
engineering was not concomitant since course in
Master of Valuation does not pertain to any
4

discipline of engineering.
06) Per contra Counsel for respondent No.1
Commissioner of Income Tax has vehemently urged fact
that as per Section 34-AB of Wealth Tax Act, as per sub
Rule (2) of Rule 8-A petitioner did not possess the
requisite qualification and experience in respective line.
Counsel also urged that undisputedly petitioner had the
qualification of Bachelor of Engineering; but the
requirement was:
A) Be graduate in Civil Engineering, architecture or
town planning of recognized university; Or
B) Be post-graduate in civil engineering, architecture or
town planning of recognized university; or
C) Possess qualification recognized by Central
Government for recruitment to superior Services or posts
under Central Government in field of civil
engineering, architecture or town planning.
07) And hence, for post of valuer under Central
Government, to be eligible for recruitment, petitioner
ought to have been graduate in Civil Engineering,
architecture or town planning, whereas, petitioner
himself admitted that he has passed Section & C in
Electronics and Communications, as per Circular No. F.
18-4/78-T.7 dated 16/08/1978 issued by Government of
India and Counsel urged that Bachelor degree of Electronic
5

and Communication can be considered equivalent to
Bachelor degree in line of Civil Engineering,
Architecture or Town Planning.
Secondly since Counsel for petitioner contended
that use of word or amply justified stand of the
petitioner that he was eligible for consideration. Counsel
urged that case relied in matter of S.K. Ahuja
(supra). said petitioner S.K. Ahuja was diploma
holder in Civil Engineering, besides, he was also member
of Institute of Engineers in Civil Division, which is a
degree, which was equivalent to degree in Civil Engineering
and hence he could be held to be qualified for registration as
a valuer for immovable properties. Hence, Counsel
prayed that present petition is without merit and it be
dismissed. Counsel also placed reliance on Institutions of
Valuers (supra).
08) On considering all submissions, we find that
Counsel for petitioner has vehemently laid stress on the
word or used in Section 8-A of this Wealth Tax Act
and submitted that petitioner possess necessary
qualifications for his registration as valuer of immovable
properties. He possess graduate degree of B.E. and was
also member of Institute of Engineers and that should
have sufficed. After giving our anxious consideration to the
submissions of Counsel and provisions of law, we
6

find that such argument though attractive at first
blush, can not be acceded, primarily because as submitted by
the Counsel for respondent question has been
examined twice by respondent No.1, Commissioner of
Income Tax and expert opinion rendered in case also
indicates in unequivocal terms that merely qualifying the
engineering examination conducted by Controller of
Examination Institute will not render petitioner eligible
for purpose of recruitment for superior post and services
as valuer under Central Government. expert opinion
states thus:
(i) Graduate in civil engineering architecture or town
planning- which is required as qualification for granting
registration as valuer of immovable property (agricultural
lands, plantations, forests, mines and quarries).
(ii) Graduate in mechanical or electrical engineering
which is required as qualification for granting registration
as valuer of machinery and plant.
Thirdly Central Government is responsible for the
appointment of Valuation Officers, according to Section
12A of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and conditions of
service are also listed in Central Government. Besides,
the petitioner does not possess necessary qualification
and experience in field of Civil Engineering and
according to amended Rule 8-A (2) (ii) of Wealth
7

Tax Rules of 1995 and amendment, which came into
effect on 31/01/1995, petitioner does not possess the
necessary qualification and experience in field of Civil
Engineering and application has thus been rightly
rejected by respondent No.1 Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax. basic qualification of Engineer is a
degree on Civil side and since matter pertains to
being appointed as valuer of immovable property, land or
machinery, and basic qualifications either being Civil
Engineer, Architecture or Town Planning can not be
marginalized or blinked away. Hence, we find that the
submissions put forth by Counsel for petitioner can
not be accepted and petition must be dismissed as being
without merit. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed as
such.
No costs.
CC as per rules.




(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Jarat Kumar Jain)
Judge Judge
Adarsh
Sarch Kumar v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & another