Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1000 (PNJ)

Raja Ram v. State of Haryana

2014-07-02

RITU BAHRI

body2014
JUDGMENT RITU BAHRI, J. The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 15.07.1993 (Annexure P-1) issued by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mandi Dabwali, in pursuance of the reference made by respondent No.4 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on account of short leavy of stamp duty and registration fees qua the property purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner had purchased land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas bearing Khewat No.90, Khatauni No.893, Khasra No.1082, situated at Dabwal, vide sale deed No.1466 dated 03.08.1990. At the time of registration of the sale deed, no objection was raised by anybody with regard to valuation of the said property. However, after three years of registration of the aforesaid sale deed, respondent No.4 made reference under Section 47-A Clause (1) of the Indian Stamps Act (for short 'the Act'). On the basis of the above references, respondent No.3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner vide impugned notice dated 15.07.1993, alleging that the sale deed was under value. The petitioner filed his reply (Annexure P-2) to the notice (Annexure P-1), while taking the plea that the land, which was purchased by him, was a low lying land i.e. 'khadda' and after filling up the same, he made improvement by spending Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, he raised construction upon the said land. The value of the land in question has now been increased after making necessary improvements. The impugned notice has been issued after a period of three years from the date of execution of the sale deed dated 03.08.1990. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the notice on the ground that the same has been issued pursuant to the list/instructions issued by the Divisional Magistrate, Dabwali (Sirsa). The said list has been made basis for issuing the impugned notice. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chamkaur Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1991 PLJ (P&H) 249 (DB), wherein it has been held that the guidelines prescribing the prices of land takes away the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar to reach any quasi judicial decision with regard to valuation or consideration for transfer of a particular property falling within his jurisdiction. The State of Punjab and others, 1991 PLJ (P&H) 249 (DB), wherein it has been held that the guidelines prescribing the prices of land takes away the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar to reach any quasi judicial decision with regard to valuation or consideration for transfer of a particular property falling within his jurisdiction. As per Section 47-A Sub Clause (1) of the Act, the Registering Officer, after registering the document, has to make an independent decision, which is quasi judicial decision and has to record reasons to believe that the sale deed had been under valued for the purpose of stamp duty. It is only after reaching this conclusion, he can refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the value of the property or genuineness of the consideration, as the case may be. The impugned notices do not reflect independent decision, coupled with the reasons to believe that the sale deeds were inadequately stamped. No reply has been filed by the respondents. The impugned notice has been issued on the basis of report made by the audit party, as objection was raised during audit regarding consideration of the above said sale deed. In the impugned notice, sale consideration has not been compared with the list, issued by the Divisional Magistrate. In Chamkaur Singhs's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was examining a notice, which was issued by the Registering Officer under Section 47-A Sub Clause (1) of the Act, which was based upon the instructions/guidelines dated 04.08.1988 laying down floor or minimum prices of different kinds and qualities of land. The Division Bench held that these instructions/guidelines were totally without jurisdiction and were not correct guidelines to enable the Sub Registrar to issue notice under Section 47-A Sub Clause (1) of the Act. The sale deeds were not registered as per guidelines dated 04.08.1988. The petition was allowed and the said guidelines were held to be totally without jurisdiction and void. The authorities under the Stamp Act, were directed to perform duties in accordance with law. These instructions came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mahabir Singh etc. 1996 AIR (SC) 2994. The petition was allowed and the said guidelines were held to be totally without jurisdiction and void. The authorities under the Stamp Act, were directed to perform duties in accordance with law. These instructions came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mahabir Singh etc. 1996 AIR (SC) 2994. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Sub Registrar, after registering a sale deed and thereafter, could make reference to the Collector under Section 47-A Sub Clause (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, for determination of value or consideration. The instructions dated 04.08.1988 providing guidelines to the Registering Authority in respect of market value were not consistent with Section 47-A of the Act. It was further held as under : “Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A empowers the Registering Officer, while registering any instrument relating to the transfer of any property, if he has reasons to believe that the value of the property or consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, after registering such instrument, to refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. It would, therefore, be clear that the Registering Authority has to satisfy himself that value of the property or the consideration for it has not been truly set forth in the instrument. He may make a reference to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. Before making reference, he is required to register the document and he is not empowered to withhold the registration. Such a registration, of course, will be subject to the determination of the true market value prevailing in the locality though the value mentioned in the instrument for such registration under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A was not conclusive.” In the present case, after a lapse of three years of registration of the sale deed, the Sub Registrar referred the matter to the Collector, alleging that the sale deed in question was registered at less than the fixed rate. The fixed rate necessarily would be the rate fixed by the Divisional Magistrate vide. On the basis of references, notice (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Collector-respondent No.3. The fixed rate necessarily would be the rate fixed by the Divisional Magistrate vide. On the basis of references, notice (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Collector-respondent No.3. As per the consistent views taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the rates fixed by the Divisional Magistrate, cannot be made basis for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A Sub Clauses (I) and (II) of the Act. Resultantly, the impugned notice dated 15.07.1993 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.