Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1428 (PNJ)

Paramjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2001-12-21

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16-2-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26-7-1996 passed by the Collector, District Faridkot, under S. 47 of the Stamps Act, was dismissed. 2. The fact giving rise to the present revision are that a sale deed dated 20/01/1995 was held to be under-stamped to the extent of Rs. 3,38,437. Thus, a notice was issued for the recovery of the balance amount of stamp fee of Rs. 42,334.00. Proceedings under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act were taken against the vendees and the vendors. 3. Paramjit Kaur and Karamjit Kaur, the vendees in the sale deed appeared before the Collector. However, none appeared on behalf of the vendors. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were taken against them. The Collector vide order dated 26/07/1996, after assessing the merits of the case besides general inspection of the site, was of the opinion that the respondents i.e. the vendors and the vendees had cheated the Government by getting the sale deed stamped at low rates. Therefore, an order for recovery of the deficiency in the stamp duty was passed whereby Naib Tehsildar was ordered to take action under S. 48-A of the Stamp Act (in short the Act). 4. Aggrieved by the order, Paramjit Kaur and Karamjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the vendees) preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, by observing that when seller himself had told the Collector at the time of his inspection at the spot about the rate of land for which it was agreed to be sold, it stands proved that the sale deed was not executed at correct price prevalent there. In such circumstances, the deficiency of Rs. 42,300.00 under the Stamp Act has been validly assessed by the Collector. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector had taken suo motu notice of the under-value of the sale deed. In fact, no notice was served upon the petitioner. The price of the land cannot be fixed on the basis of estimate on the spot. 42,300.00 under the Stamp Act has been validly assessed by the Collector. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector had taken suo motu notice of the under-value of the sale deed. In fact, no notice was served upon the petitioner. The price of the land cannot be fixed on the basis of estimate on the spot. In fact, the requirement of S. 47-A of the Act is that the value of the property would be fixed by determining the price which the property would have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the sale deed. The procedure prescribed in the Act was not followed, therefore, the Court below have erred in ordering the petitioners to make deficiency in the stamp duty. 6. As is apparent from the impugned orders, the vendees on the receipt of the notice, had appeared before the Collector. This fact alone is not a deciding factor for the purpose of determining the value of the land as envisaged under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act. It is also made out from the record that the vendors at the time of inspection had told the Collector about the rate of the land for which it was agreed to be sold. Concededly, the statement of vendor has not been recorded nor any other evidence had been collected or recorded on the spot. The value of the land can be determined by leading evidence by the parties. The explanation to S. 47-A provides as under :- "That the value shall be fixed by determining the price for which the property would have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the sale deed and it cannot be fixed on estimate basis." 7. It is also pertinent to note that the sale deed was executed on 20-1-1995 whereas the proceedings under S. 47-A of the Act were initiated on 10-6-1996. Thus, the reference regarding the recovery of deficiency in stamp duty could be made only after the registration of documents or in the course of registration of documents, not after such a long time, as held in Abhinav Kumar V/s. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) ICC 484. 8. In view of the aforesaid, as the procedure provided under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act was not observed while passing the impugned order, this revision is accepted. 8. In view of the aforesaid, as the procedure provided under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act was not observed while passing the impugned order, this revision is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. Revision allowed.