Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1278 (MP)

Santosh Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2006-11-13

AJIT SINGH

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is directed against the demand notice dated 7-8-2006 Annexure P-2 issued by the Tehsildar (respondent No. 4) calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 88,305/- as stamp duty in compliance of the order dated 11-6-2002 Annexure P-3, passed by the Collector of Stamps (respondent No. 2 ). ( 2. ) THE petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 8-7-1997 purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 3/5, Area 3. 438 hectares situated at Patlon, Block Saikheda, Revenue Circle, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in the name of his minor daughter Ku. Pratibha from Baijnath and Ramgopal. The petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs. 3,550/- on the basis of market value of the property shown in the instrument as Rs. 40,000/ -. The Registering Officer being dissatisfied with the market value of the property in question shown in the instrument referred the same to the Collector (respondent No. 2) for its determination and proper duty payable thereon. This he did under Sub-section (1) of Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Collector (respondent No. 2) on receipt of the aforesaid reference, dated 11-6-2002, Annexure P-3, held the market value of the property as Rs. 9,52,300/- and, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 88,295/- as difference of stamp duty payable on the instrument. Section 47a (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under: (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner, as may be prescribed determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. ( 3. ) THIS sub-section clearly provides that the Collector (respondent No. 2) must give a prior opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before determining the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the instrument and the duty payable on it. ( 4. ( 3. ) THIS sub-section clearly provides that the Collector (respondent No. 2) must give a prior opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before determining the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the instrument and the duty payable on it. ( 4. ) IN the instant case, the learned Government Advocate has fairly conceded that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Collector (respondent No. 2) under Section 47a (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 while determining the market value of the property mentioned in the Instrument and the duty payable on it. ( 5. ) AS the Collector (respondent No. 2) did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the order dated 11-6-2002, Annexure P-3, passed by him cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, demand notice dated 7-8-2006, Annexure P-2, also stands quashed. The case of the petitioner is remitted to the Collector (respondent No. 2) for its re-examination. The Collector (respondent No. 2) shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order after holding an enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner regarding the market value of the property mentioned in the instrument and the duty payable on it. The petition succeeds and is allowed. C. C. as per rules.