Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 389 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana

2007-03-09

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon, dated 7.12.2006, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 9.1.2006 calling upon the petitioner to make up the deficiency in stamp duty amounting to Rs. 14,24,375/-, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has got executed a sale deed of the land measuring 128 Kanals 9 Marlas on 23.12.2002 in village Bilaspur, for total sale consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/-. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pointing out that the value of the land comes out to Rs. 1,28,45,000/- on which stamp duty payable is Rs. 16,05,625/-, but stamp duty of only Rs. 1,81,250/- has been paid, Therefore, there is deficiency of Rs. 14,24,375/- in paying the stamp duty. 3. The reasoning given by the petitioner to value the land at the price mentioned in the sale deed was that various civil suits are pending against the petitioner and even the petitioner is not in possession of the land. 4. The Commissioner has found that the sale deed itself contains a recital that the said land is free from all encumbrances and buyer would become absolute owner of the subject matter of the land. It has been further found that the purchased land is situated on Delhi-Jaipur Highway and the land situated in village Bilaspur is adjoining the road and can be used for commercial purposes. Thus, there is deficiency in the stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the land was disputed and, therefore, the valuation mentioned in the sale deed was just valuation and the Collector rate cannot be taken into consideration. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Abhinav Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, (2001-1)127 PLR 598 to contend that reference has been made after registration of the sale deed and, therefore, such reference is not maintainable. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Abhinav Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, (2001-1)127 PLR 598 to contend that reference has been made after registration of the sale deed and, therefore, such reference is not maintainable. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Lalita Devi and another v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and another,(2001-2)128 PLR 23, to contend that the petitioner was not granted any reasonable opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 47-A of the Act. 6. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 47-A of the Act empowers the Sub Registrar to initiate process if the document is found to be insufficiently stamped. Such process can be initiated after registration of the document and within 3 years of registration of the document. Section 47A of the Act reads as under : "47-A. Instruments under valued, how to be dealt with - (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of 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 by rules made under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a district, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him after sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty : Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973, also be competent to act as aforesaid in respect of the instruments registered on or after the first day of November, 1966 and before the first day of October, 1970. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may, within thirty days from date of the order, prefer an appeal before the District Judge and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." 7. A perusal of section 47-A(1) of the Act shows that the Registering Officer has to make reference to the Collector after registration of the instrument if he finds that at the time of registration, the document is undervalued. Therefore the judgment in Abhinav Kumars case (supra) cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner as the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Act have not been considered. 8. Apart from the said fact, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 16128 of 2001 tilted State of Punjab v. Kunda Singh, decided on May 06, 2004 has considered identical provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as amended vide Punjab Act No. 17 of 1994. 8. Apart from the said fact, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 16128 of 2001 tilted State of Punjab v. Kunda Singh, decided on May 06, 2004 has considered identical provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as amended vide Punjab Act No. 17 of 1994. It was found that the Collector can pass an order to make good the deficiency in the stamp duty if the proceedings are initiated within a period of three years from the date of registration of the document. In view, thereof, reliance of the petitioner on Abhinav Kumars case (supra) is not well founded. 9. The judgment in Lalita Devis case (supra), is again not helpful to the petitioner. In the said judgment, it was held that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with while passing an order in terms of the aforesaid provisions. 10. In the present case, show cause notice has been given to the petitioner. An order has been passed after considering the reply. Therefore, it cannot be said that any principle of natural justice has not been complied with by the authorities under the Act. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 12. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.