Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1434 (PNJ)

Anil Kumar Jain v. State of Haryana

2013-10-31

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2013
JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- By way of this judgment, CWP Nos.7745 and 8234 of 1992 are being decided together being between the same set of parties and involving identical questions of law and facts. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CWP No.7745 of 1992. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners bought an area of 278.75 sq. meters pertaining to a portion of shop No.24 in Goal Market, Panipat vide registered sale deed No.1998 dated 9.6.1989 for a sale consideration of Rs.95,000/-. The sale deed was registered before the Sub Registrar and stamp duty was paid on the amount of Rs.95,000/-. The construction over the site of shop was stated to be very old as also not fit for human habitation. 3. Pursuant to certain objections, regarding under-valuation of the property and payment of lesser stamp duty, raised by the audit party in the year 1991, the Sub Registrar referred the matter under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short, the Act) to the Collector, Panipat, respondent No.2, for correct valuation of the property. The Collector, Panipat, respondent No.2, assessed the value of the property at Rs.1,39,375/- and ordered the petitioners to pay stamp duty on this amount. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 47-A of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Panipat which was, however, dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. The main plank of argument propounded by the petitioners is that the Sub Registrar could not have made a reference to the Collector for assessment of the value, as Section 47-A of the Act only vests such powers with the Collector to take suo motu notice or on receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or from the Registrar of a District in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated. 6. This contention of the petitioner is misconstrued. It is fallacious as also untenable. 6. This contention of the petitioner is misconstrued. It is fallacious as also untenable. At this stage, it would be of avail to refer to the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act which read as under:- “47-A – Instrument under valued how to be dealt - (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 consideration as the case may, 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 eqnuiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under the 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 under 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 reasons 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 Act (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 the 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 – Haryana Act 37 of 1973 S.3 (w.e.f. 1.11.1966).” 7. A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act makes it clear that 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 of 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. 8. Admittedly, in this case, the Sub Registrar is the Registering Officer. 8. Admittedly, in this case, the Sub Registrar is the Registering Officer. Therefore, there is nothing wrong or illegal in the Sub Registrar exercising powers conferred upon him under Section 47-A(1) of the Act and thereby making a reference to the Collector for correct valuation of the property. Therefore, there being no force in the contention, the same is rejected. 9. Another ancillary argument made by counsel for the petitioners is that Anil Kumar Jain, one of the petitioners herein, never appeared before the Collector at the site during the process of valuation of the property. However, the respondents have strongly refuted this allegation. The record reveals that petitioner Arun Kumar Jain was present on 8.5.1991 at the time of spot inspection by the Collector. The Collector again served a notice upon the petitioners (vendees) in pursuance whereof, petitioner Arun Kumar Jain appeared before him on 14.5.1991 and made a statement on oath that agreement was entered into with the vendors for the purchase of the plot @ Rs.500/- per square yard. 10. Connected with this ancillary argument, another argument raised by the petitioners is that even if there is admission by one of the petitioners, the same is not binding on the remaining petitioners. There is no force in this contention. The instant one is not a criminal trial where admission by one of the accused is not binding on the other co-accused. This is a civil matter. Furthermore, there is community of interest inter-se the petitioners. 11. Thus, the matter involves a disputed question of fact, inasmuch, as the official respondents aver that petitioner Arun Kumar Jain appeared before the Collector and made an admission that the deal was struck @ Rs.500/- sq. yard, whereas the petitioners deny this factum. In this view of the matter, the writ petition even otherwise would not be maintainable. It is one of the cardinal principles that writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked if the matter involves disputed questions of fact and the remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere. 12. For the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions being not maintainable, are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ———————— Om Parkash v. The State of Hayrana & Ors.