REBUILDING THE PILLARS OF VALUATION INTEGRITY IN INDIA

A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR REFORM AND RENEWAL

Er. P. V. Rajesh (Bureau Chief)

Hyderabad (Techno Journalist) 20/05/2025 –In a country where numbers shape futures, where valuations determine the fate of financial decisions, and where institutions are trusted to protect national wealth—there lies a profession both powerful and under protected: Land and Building Valuation.

India stands tall today, globally respected for its resilience and reform-oriented governance. We are a nation that pioneered UPI, revolutionized insolvency with the IBC, and transformed indirect taxation through GST. Yet, within this success story, a quiet fault line is emerging—one that calls not for blame, but for immediate and courageous alignment.

That fault line runs through the very credentialing and registration systems that empower professionals to undertake real estate valuation—work that directly influences trillions of rupees in loans, resolutions, tax assessments, and infrastructure decisions. At its core lies the integrity of qualifications presented by Registered Valuers of the Land & Building (L&B) asset class, especially under the IBBI and CBDT frameworks.

 A Technical Profession Under Siege

Over the past several years, a growing concern has taken root. Numerous individuals, without a basic academic foundation in Civil Engineering, Architecture, or Town Planning, have entered the profession by presenting postgraduate degrees in Real Estate Valuation obtained through unapproved or non-recognized distance education programs. In particular, in a TN-based University’s and some other such universitie’s PG degrees in Real Estate Valuation post-2014–15—which were not approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC)—have been used to gain registration under Section 247 of the Companies Act, Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, and for bank empanelment.

Even more concerning, in some cases, counterfeit degrees from black-market sources have been submitted to circumvent tightening regulatory scrutiny. This isn’t just about fraud—it’s about systemic oversight and gaps in policy enforcement that have created a backdoor entry into a technically specialized and high-risk domain.

 What the Courts Have Said: A Legal Wake-Up Call

This concern is not speculative. It has been thoroughly examined by the Madras High Court, Calcutta High Court, and recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In W.A. No. 606/2015, the Madras High Court clearly upheld the primacy of the UGC in regulating the territorial and program-level validity of distance education. It concluded that State Universities cannot operate beyond their territorial limits and must comply with UGC’s course-specific recognition rules. Further, the court emphasized that universities cannot offer distance learning courses—including PG degrees in valuation—without UGC’s approval, and that recognition is contingent not merely on institutional status but on course-wise compliance.

The Supreme Court of India, in SLP Diary No. 16604/2023, took cognizance of these issues. While the impugned High Court judgment was in UGC’s favor, the Solicitor General argued that some students may have benefited unfairly under interim orders. The Bench directed UGC to file an affidavit listing such unapproved degrees, while issuing notices to universities like this University to provide full disclosure about the courses in question. This shows that even the apex court recognizes the depth and complexity of the situation, and is examining the matter for potential segregation of legitimate and illegitimate qualifications.

In parallel, the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Ashoke Kumar Nandy vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. 13987 of 2016), went even further. It declared distance education degrees from a University and others invalid for lack of UGC recognition, condemned their deceptive advertisements, and directed restitution to students who were misled.

These rulings collectively confirm the legal invalidity of such qualifications and the regulatory failure that allowed them to be used for professional registrations.

 The Real-World Consequences for Banks, CBDT & IBBI

This is not merely a regulatory debate—it’s a financial sector risk. Here’s what’s at stake:

1. For Banks and NBFCs: Empanelling valuers without civil or architectural backgrounds leads to flawed valuation reports. Collateral mismatches result in over- or under-lending, exacerbating India’s already sensitive Non-Performing Asset (NPA) ecosystem.
2. For the CBDT: Under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, relying on improperly qualified valuers for property assessments jeopardizes fair tax computation, inheritance valuations, and capital gains determination.
3. For the IBC Framework, Resolution plans under insolvency often hinge on accurate asset valuation. Reports from inadequately trained valuers distort creditor decisions, reduce bidder confidence, and risk legal challenge.
4. For Genuine Civil Engineers and Professionals: Thousands who have spent years building expertise in structural standards, construction economics, and site assessment are being edged out by those with degrees obtained via unregulated channels or even fraudulently.

 A Moment to Correct, Not Condemn- It is time for structural correction:

• IBBI and CBDT should undertake a one-time revalidation of all existing Land & Building valuer registrations, verifying not just university recognition, but course-specific UGC, AICTE approval, and base discipline in Civil Engineering, Architecture, or Town Planning.
• Banks and financial institutions must audit and clean up their valuation panels, ensuring that only professionals with technical foundations remain empaneled.
• UGC and the Ministry of Education must publish a centralized dashboard listing course-specific approvals and de-recognized programs, so no future aspirant is misled.
• Professional institutions and valuer associations must cease endorsement of unrecognized programs and collaborate with UGC/AICTE to build compliant training programs that support upskilling.

India has never shied from reform. From banking digitization to indirect tax reform, from Aadhaar to FASTag—we have set the global benchmark in self-correction and innovation. Now is the time to show that even the most silent professions—like valuation—are not outside the purview of integrity. Let us ensure that every valuation report is backed by real qualifications, verified systems, and national trust.

Because behind every valuation is a signature. And behind that signature must stand the truth.

The above article highlights critical issues in India’s Land and Building (L&B) valuation profession, emphasizing the urgent need for reform to protect the integrity of financial systems. Despite India’s track record of progressive reforms, systemic gaps in credentialing have allowed underqualified individuals, many holding unrecognized or fraudulent postgraduate degrees, particularly from institutions like a TN-based University, to enter the valuation field. Courts, including the Madras, Calcutta, and Supreme Courts, have ruled against the legitimacy of such degrees, exposing regulatory failures.

These lapses have serious implications for banks, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and the IBC, as flawed valuations can distort lending, tax assessments, and insolvency resolutions. The article urges authorities to take corrective action through revalidation of existing valuer registrations, cleaning up bank empanelments, creating a centralized UGC-approved course dashboard, and enforcing professional discipline. The message is clear: India must now uphold the integrity of this silent but critical profession, ensuring that every valuation rests on verified qualifications and public trust.

SOME RELATED COURT ORDERS & CIRCULARS

DISCLAIMER:

The content of this article is intended solely for informational and educational purposes. It offers general guidance on the IBBI Valuation Examination and related topics, as shared by the CEV Techno News. This article does not constitute professional advice, nor does it endorse any specific approach or methodology for the examination or valuation practices. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented, CEV Techno News makes no guarantees regarding its completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. Readers are strongly encouraged to consult official resources, including the other official guidelines, and to seek professional advice before making decisions based on the content of this article. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of CEV Techno News or any affiliated organizations. Neither CEV Techno News accepts any responsibility for actions, losses, or damages arising from the use of information contained in this article with the Examination or any other professional activities.

By reading this article, you acknowledge and accept this disclaimer.