Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3112 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers

2005-11-23

HARBANS LAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The order dated October 9, 2001 of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the instant special appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Single Judge under the impugned order directed the appellants to pass fresh order regarding the market value of the property in question for the purpose of levy of the stamp duty as on the date of filing of the suit. Five guidelines in the matter of execution and registration of the sale-deed in pursuance of the execution of the decree have been incorporated in the impugned judgment thus: (1) In a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale, the sale deed on the success of the plaintiff vendee and where the vendor did not comply the same is to be executed by the Court in execution of the decree. (2) The Stamp Duty Officer in that case is competent to exercise the powers to assess the market value of the property for the purpose of charging the stamp duty thereon etc. and the fees of the registration of the document. (3) The sale consideration as mentioned in the document of the transfer of the property is not conclusive and binding on the State Government and its officers. (4) In the case where the sale-deed is to be executed by the Court in execution of the decree of the specific performance of agreement to sale passed by it and where the market value of the property has been determined by the court for the purpose of stamp duty after hearing the parties and State Government then that decision shall be binding on the Government. (5) For the purpose of charging the stamp duty etc. the relevant date for the assessment of the market value except in the case of category afore-stated of the property in dispute for the levy of the stamp duty shall be the date on which the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale has been filed. 4. It appears that when pursuance to the decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract the sale-deeds were not executed, the execution petition came to be filed and the respondent-firm deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the court on May 9, 1994. thereafter, on the execution applications Nos. 4. It appears that when pursuance to the decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract the sale-deeds were not executed, the execution petition came to be filed and the respondent-firm deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the court on May 9, 1994. thereafter, on the execution applications Nos. 15/94 and 16/94, the Executing Court ordered the respondent-firm to submit the stamps for the execution of two sale-deeds. Consequently, the respondent-firm submitted stamp papers worth Rs. 14,100/- for execution of the sale-deed of the property which was purchased for a price of Rs. 1,41,000/-. The Executing Court executed the sale-deeds and sent the same on March 17, 1995 for registration to the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. The Sub-Registrar exercising its powers under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act sent those two sale-deeds to the Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for determining the market value and to assess and charge the stamp duty. 5. The Collector (Stamps) it ill-Hated two cases Nos. 442/95 and 443/95 and issued notices to the respondent-firm. Thereafter, Collector (Stamps) passed an order dated March 5, 1997 in case No. 442/95 whereby the value of the property was assessed as 5,60,000/-, deficient stamp duty as Rs. 41,900/-, deficient registration fee as Rs. 1,500/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- which amount was ordered to be recovered from the respondent-firm. As also in case No. 443/95, the value of the property was assessed as Rs. 3,87,580/-, deficient registration fees as Rs. 33,758/-, deficient registration fees as Rs. 1,500/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- and the said amount was ordered to be recovered from the respondent-firm a Challenging the action of the Collector (Stamps), the respondent-firm filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge who decided the same as indicated here-in-above. 6. Having pondered over the submissions and on scanning the matter on record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. In Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town and /Vandal v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao (died) and others, AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 252 , it was indicated that the sale price as mentioned in the document ought to have been considered for levying the stamp duty. But the learned' Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case directed to assess the market value on the property In question as on the date of filing of the suit. 8. But the learned' Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case directed to assess the market value on the property In question as on the date of filing of the suit. 8. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We fail to understand as to how the State of Rajasthan, Collector (Stamps) and Sub-Registrar took decision to file this special appeal. 9. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same stands dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******