Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 241 (PAT)

Baiju Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure-2) whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay the Stamp duty on the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per Katha for registration of a conveyance deed. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that an agreement to sale dated 12.5.1974 was entered between the petitioners and one Md. Habib for sale of 4 Bighas, 5 Dhurs and 5 Dhurki of land detailed in the agreement of sale. According to the petitioner, said Habib did not execute the sale deed and left with no option petitioner filed Title Suit No. 181 of 1977 for specific performance of contract but the Subordinate Judge-II, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.1980 dismissed the suit. 3. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 523 of 1980 before this Court and by judgment and decree dated 31st of January, 1995 the vendor was ordered to execute the sale deed on payment of balance of consideration amount. Petitioner filed application for execution of the decree and the executing court presented the deed for registration before registering authority. However, it seem that in view of the provision of section 47A of the Stamp Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act 15 of 1988, the matter was referred for ascertaining the value of the property and the Sub-divisional Officer recommended that the value of the land is Rs. 4,500/- per Katha. Accordingly the petitioner has been asked to deposit the stamp at such rate for registration of the document. 4. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the document was presented for registration pursuant to a decree of specific performance of contract passed by this Court and the agreement itself having been entered into between the parties before the introduction of section 47 of the Act, the registering authority had no option than to accept the valuation as shown in the decree. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad and another vrs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 2001 Patna 161) [: 2001(1) PLJR 671 ] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "22. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad and another vrs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 2001 Patna 161) [: 2001(1) PLJR 671 ] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "22. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstance of the case and the law discussed herein above, I have come to the following conclusions : (1) Section 47A of the Act, as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1988 shall have no application in respect of a document presented for registration pursuant to a decree for specific performance of an agreement executed prior to coming into force of the amended provision of Act. (2) Power under Section 47A of the Act can be exercised when the Registering authority has reasons to believe that the valuation of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not rightly been set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty. Mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and execution of document will not be the determining factor that the document is undervalued and such circumstances may not ifseif be sufficient to invoke power under Section 47A of the said Act. (3) The Registering authority is empowered under Section 47A of the Act to hold an enquiry to satisfy himself whether value of the property has been rightly shown in the document, but in the instant case as the agreement entered into between the parties is much before the amending Act came into existence and having regard to the fact that the parties have been litigating for about 20 years, the Registering authority has no jurisdiction to initiate enquiry under the said provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder." 5. J.C. to G.A. however submits that in the facts of the present case, the authority did nor err in asking the petitioner to pay the stamp duty on the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per Katha for the registration of the deed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sharma. In the present case, the agreement to sell was entered between the petitioner and his vendor on 12.5.1974. 4,500/- per Katha for the registration of the deed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sharma. In the present case, the agreement to sell was entered between the petitioner and his vendor on 12.5.1974. Further the suit for specific performance was filed in the year 1977 which was dismissed on 26.4.1980. It is on appeal that this court, by its judgment and decree dated 31st of January, 1995, decreed the suit and ordered the vendor to execute the sale deed on payment of balance consideration money. Thus, the agreement to self was entered between the petitioner and his vendor prior to introduction of section 47A if the Stamp Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act 15 of 1988. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad (supra), Section 47A of the Stamp Act shall have no application in respect of document presented for registration pursuant to a decree for specific performance of an agreement executed prior to coming into force of the inserted provision of the Act. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 2S.6.1998 (Annexure- 2) cannot be allowed to stand and it is directed that the registering authority shall register the document on payment of stamp duty on the valuation mentioned in the agreement to sell and shall not demand payment of additional stamp duty. 8. in the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.6.1998 is quashed with the direction aforesaid. In the fact and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.