Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1094 (PAT)

Ahilya Devi v. State Of Bihar

2001-12-06

R.S.GARG

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2001 passed in Case No. 115(M) of 1997 (State V/s. Ahilya Devi). Under the said order the District Magistrate /Collector, Nawada has held that the value of the property was not correctly mentioned, the property was under value, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the Stamp Duty etc. on the correct valuation of the property and was liable to pay double the amount of the Stamp Duty as penalty. Being confronted with the question of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 13 of Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at this stage is not challenging the valuation fixed by the Stamp Collector/ District Magistrate but simply challenged the imposition of penalty. Refering to Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 learned counsel submits that a fine to the extent of Rs.5,000/- may be imposed. If it is found that any person with intent to defraud the Government has not given the full particulars in the documents submitted for registration, according to him, the imposition of the penalty beyond Rs. 5,000/- would be absolute illegal. 4. The learned counsel for the State after going through the provisions as contained in Section 64 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 submits that though the Stamp Collector has authority to impose fine to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only but the petitioner must file an appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that in a case like present where the petitioner is not challenging the valuation of the property as fixed by the Stamp Collector, the only question for consideration would be in relation to the authority of the Stamp Collector to impose the penalty as extent to the same. Section 64 of the Act provides that the fine may be imposed to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. If that be so, the Stamp Collector will have no jurisdiction to impose penalty beyond Rs. 5,000/-. The order passed by the Stamp Collector/ District Magistrate is that the petitioner would be required to pay the required stamp duty double the stamp duty. 5,000/- only. If that be so, the Stamp Collector will have no jurisdiction to impose penalty beyond Rs. 5,000/-. The order passed by the Stamp Collector/ District Magistrate is that the petitioner would be required to pay the required stamp duty double the stamp duty. Even from the order it does not appear that the penalty was double of the stamp duty suppressed or the total amount of the stamp duty required to be fixed. Be that as it may the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty beyond Rs. 5,000/-. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of the relief claimed and arguments raised by the parties I have proposed to modify the order passed by the District Magistrate to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit the balance stamp duty and shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the penalty. 7. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.