Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1700 (PNJ)

Harinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-10-01

HEMANT GUPTA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, on 24.1.2007 (Annexure P3) and order in appeal dated 2.1.2008 (Annexure P5) in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The Authorities under the Act found that the instrument of sale dated 6.9.2008 is undervalued and, therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to make good the deficiency in stamp duty as per the market value assessed as per the Collectors rate. 3. The petitioner has challenged the instructions issued by the State Government on 22.10.2002 in the present writ petition. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act, an enquiry is required to be conducted in respect of market value of the property sold and, therefore, without any enquiry, the reliance on Collectors rate to determine the market value of the property conveyed through the instructions in question is unjustified. 4. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the petitioner. Under section 47-A(1) of the Act, the Collector is required to determine the market value of such property and demand stamp duty if the market value set forth in the instrument is less than the minimum value as determined in accordance with the Rules made under the Act. In other words, sub-section (1) contemplates that market value determined shall not be less than the minimum rate fixed in terms of the Rules made under the Act. The Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983 were amended on 23.08.2002 when Rule 3-A was inserted. After insertion of such rule, the Collectors rate has been given statutory recognition. Therefore, the enquiry contemplated under sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act is in respect of market value more than the minimum market value determined under the Rules. Thus, there is no consistency in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act. 5. Therefore, the enquiry contemplated under sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act is in respect of market value more than the minimum market value determined under the Rules. Thus, there is no consistency in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act. 5. The demand of market value of the property on the date of registration of the instrument has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhjit Singh Cheema, Advocate v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Chandigarh and Others, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 337 Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2005 decided on 18.9.2008, and the demand as per Collectors rate has been upheld. In view of the aforesaid judgment and for the above reasons, we do not find that the determination of market value as per Collectors rate is illegal and arbitrary which may warrant interferences by this Court. Dismissed.