Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 86 (ALL)

Jasimul Huda v. State of U. P.

2018-01-09

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Rejoinder affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Asif Hasan holding brief for Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.02.2001 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2 arising out of proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899). 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner purchased an agricultural Plot No. 73, area 0.092 hectares from one Parvej through registered sale deed dated 16.06.1994. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.11.2000. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and thereafter filed his objections. Thereafter SDM/Collector Stamp vide order dated 24.02.2001 has determined the value of the property at Rs. 64,000/-, @ Rs. 8000/- per biswa and has determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 5930/-. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a stamp revision, which has also been rejected by Addl. Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad vide his order dated 16.02.2004. 6. Submission of Sri Asif Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute was purchased on 16.06.1994 whereas the notice under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 was issued on 15.11.2000 and, therefore, the entire proceedings were barred by limitation being beyond the period of four years as envisaged in sub-section 3 of Section 47A of the Act, 1899. This plea of limitation has been taken by the petitioner in his objections and in fact has been referred to in the order of Collector Stamp but it has been rejected by the Collector Stamp with the finding that although sale deed is dated 16.06.1994 but the reference was made by the Sub Registrar on 20.05.1998 and therefore, the subsequent proceedings were within time. 7. 7. In the opinion of the Court, this finding of stamp authorities is absolutely misconceived and incorrect inasmuch as the law in this regard has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1998) AIR All. 237 (Special Bench) wherein the Full Bench has held that the period of limitation will run from the date of registration of the instrument and not when the Collector takes cognizance of the matter and initiates proceedings. If on a reference received, the Collector decides to initiate proceedings he will still be required to do so within four years from the date of registration of the instrument. The submission of the report or presentation of the document by the Registrar or the Tehsildar or any other authority is not the starting point of limitation. The relevant paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the Full Bench decision reads as under: "10. There is no dispute from either side that the starting point of limitation is the date of registration of the instrument and the period of limitation is four years. According to learned Chief Standing Counsel, if a reference from any Court or Commissioner of Stamps or Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized by the Board of Revenue in that behalf is made within four years from the date of registration of the Instrument, whether any action is taken by the Collector or not, the proceedings would be within limitation. Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants has, on the other hand, contended that the limitation of four years is for the Collector to initiate action and the date on which a reference is made by a Court or authorities enumerated in the opening part of sub-section (4) of Section 47A is irrelevant. The question which arises for consideration is whether the period of four years qualifies the action of the Collector or the making of reference. Under sub-section (1) of Section 47A the registering officer is required to make a reference to the Collector before registering the instrument, while under sub-section (2) a discretion has been given to him to register the Instrument and then make a reference to the Collector for determination of market value. Under sub-section (1) of Section 47A the registering officer is required to make a reference to the Collector before registering the instrument, while under sub-section (2) a discretion has been given to him to register the Instrument and then make a reference to the Collector for determination of market value. In normal course of events this reference would be made immediately after registering the Instrument and, therefore, the enquiry under sub-section (3) is likely to commence soon as the person in whose favour the instrument has been executed would forthwith come to know about the reference and would be interested to get the matter concluded. In the first case the Instrument would remain unregistered and in the second case he will not get back the instrument after registration on account of it having been referred to the Collector. Therefore, in cases covered by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) at least the factum of reference would be immediately known to the person in whose favour instrument has been executed and he is bound to take all proceedings expeditiously in order to secure his title or get the benefits of the instrument. Under sub-section (4) power has been conferred on the Collector to call for and examine the instrument after it has been registered for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is subject of such instrument and the duty payable thereon. This action can be taken either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section. In our opinion, the language of the sub-section shows that the period of four years qualifies the action which may be taken by the Collector. If the Interpretation suggested by learned Chief Standing Counsel was correct, the sub-section would have read like this : "The Collector may, suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf made within four years from the date of registration of any instrument." From the language in which the sub-section has been couched, it is not possible to hold that the period of four years qualifies the reference. 11. 11. It may be noticed that the language used in the opening part of sub-section (4) of Section 33 is exactly similar to the language used in the opening part of sub-section (4) of Section 47A. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 33 says that no action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the Instrument. Here the bar of limitation applies to the action which may be taken by the Collector and not to a reference. There is no reason why similar interpretation should not be given to sub-section (4) of Section 47A specially when both the sections namely Section 33 and Section 47A find place in same Chapter IV of the Stamp Act which deals with Instrument Not Duly Stamped. 12........... 13. There is another reason for not accepting the submission made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. If the period of limitation is held to be applicable only to the making of a reference, a very anomalous situation may arise. There will be no limitation where the Collector chooses to take suo motu action and he may do so at any time at his sweet will. Even where a reference is made within limitation i.e., within four years either by a Court or any of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section, the Collector may not proceed forthwith and the matter may be kept pending for years. He may commence proceedings after a long period, may be after decades. The property may change hands several times during this period which may create complications for the present owner who may not even be aware of the circumstances attending the execution of the instrument which is alleged to be undervalued and may not be in a position to lead evidence. The value of immovable property changes fast. There has been a meteoric rise in the value of Immovable property in the recent past. If the proceedings are taken after a long period it may become very difficult to give evidence regarding the market value of the property at the time the instrument was executed. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to fix a period of limitation within which the Collector must initiate action so that the enquiry may not be unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to fix a period of limitation within which the Collector must initiate action so that the enquiry may not be unnecessarily delayed. In this connection, it may be pointed out that after the decision of Himalaya House Co. Ltd. vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (1972) AIR SC 899 many States inserted Section 47A by amendment in the Stamp Act and the Collector was conferred power to suo motu call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property. In Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Daman and Diu and West Bengal the period of limitation for the Collector to suo motu call for and examine the instrument is two years while in Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh it is three years. This shows that the intention of the Legislature is that the entire exercise should be concluded within a reasonable period and may not be kept pending for long. 14. Learned Chief Standing Counsel vehemently urged that Rule 346 of the U. P. Stamp Rules showed that the period of limitation of four years is provided for making a reference to the Collector. Rule 346, no doubt, provides that the Inspector of Stamps and Registration shall make a reference to the Collector within four years from the date of registration of the instrument. But this rule cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with Rule 352. Rule 352 shows that the period of limitation applies to the action which may be taken by the Collector and not to a reference. As observed earlier, the Rules are always subservient to the Act under which they have been made and they cannot override or amend the provisions of the Act itself. Rule 346 cannot change the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 47A. Learned Chief Standing Counsel also referred to a Supreme Court decision rendered in Trideshwar Dayal vs. Mahenswar Dayal, (1990) 1 SCC 357 and urged on its basis that the period of limitation does not apply to the action of the Collector. Rule 346 cannot change the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 47A. Learned Chief Standing Counsel also referred to a Supreme Court decision rendered in Trideshwar Dayal vs. Mahenswar Dayal, (1990) 1 SCC 357 and urged on its basis that the period of limitation does not apply to the action of the Collector. We do not think that in the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has held as a proposition of law that the period of limitation does not apply to the action which may be initiated by the Collector but applies only to a reference by a Court or other authority enumerated in the sub-section. In this case, order for impounding the award of the arbitrator had been passed by the civil court itself and subsequent order of the Collector was held to have been passed merely as a follow-up step in pursuance of the civil court's order. 15. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows: 1. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose penalty. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) to Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section." 8. Admittedly in the present case the sale deed was dated 16.06.1994 whereas the proceedings were initiated through notice dated 15.11.2000. The averments to that effect, which have been made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition have not been denied in paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit and rather it is replied by stating that the contents of paragraph nos. 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the writ petition are matter of record. 9. It is, therefore, undisputed that the entire proceedings having been initiated by issuance of notice dated 15.11.2000 by the stamp authorities were without jurisdiction being barred by limitation. 10. 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the writ petition are matter of record. 9. It is, therefore, undisputed that the entire proceedings having been initiated by issuance of notice dated 15.11.2000 by the stamp authorities were without jurisdiction being barred by limitation. 10. Therefore, on the facts of the case and in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava , the impugned order 24.02.2001 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2 are absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and the accordingly, set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. In case any amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty under the interim orders of this Court, the same shall be refunded to him by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.