Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 230 (HP)

Carlo Tech Village Beer Plasi v. State of H. P.

2019-03-07

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been laid to judgment dated 21.02.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Camp at Nalagarh, affirming the order dated 21.06.2014, passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, in the proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, whereby petitioner was directed to pay deficient stamp duty of Rs.4,36,492/-. 2. For having bird's eye view, necessary facts, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner purchased 8-14 bighas of land in village Beer Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. vide sale deed dated 29.9.2011, for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,00,000/-, upon which a stamp duty of Rs.2,30,000/- was affixed. Subsequent to registration of the aforesaid sale deed, a reference was received by Sub Divisional Collector from Sub Registrar, Nalagarh, who alleged that on the basis of average value furnished by the Patwari, the market value of the land and structure in the sale deed has been wrongly mentioned to be Rs.46,00,000/-, whereas it ought to have been Rs.2,33,95,914/-, upon which a stamp duty of Rs.11,69,796/- was required to be paid, and, as such, there is a deficiency of Rs.9,39,796/- on account of stamp duty which is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid reference received by Sub Divisional Collector, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, wherein, petitioner by way of reply refuted the claim put forth by the Sub Registrar, Nalagarh, and claimed that he has purchased land and building vide sale deed No.983, dated 29.9.2011 in village Beer Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. after paying a total consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-, on the basis of average price of the land, whereas Rs.10,00,000/- has been assessed as a value of building situated upon such land and, as such, total value of the property in dispute has rightly been assessed at Rs.46,00,000/-, upon which a stamp duty of Rs.2,30,000/- has been affixed strictly as per value of the land and the building. Petitioner further claimed that the land purchased by him is entirely uncultivated for the last so many years. Petitioner further claimed that the land purchased by him is entirely uncultivated for the last so many years. He further claimed that the land in question was under the building and the sale deed was executed after receipt of permission from the Government and the land is "Gairmumkin" as per the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2005-06. Petitioner further claimed that the value of the land cannot be determined simply on the basis of classification of the land in the revenue record. However, fact remains that Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, on the conclusion of the proceedings initiated by him under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, arrived at a conclusion that on the basis of one year average cost of the land in village Beer Plassi, which is indicator of market value, the value of the suit land is Rs.1,23,29,850/- and, as such, the petitioner is required to pay the deficient stamp duty of Rs.4,36,492/-. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.9-NL/13 of 2014, however, fact remains that said appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, as a consequence of which, order dated 21.6.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned Counsel representing the petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, is not based upon proper appreciation of material available on record by the petitioner, rather this Court finds that learned District Judge, Solan, while affirming the order dated 21.6.2014, passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope for this Court to interfere in the same. 6. Undisputedly, petitioner purchased the industrial concern M/s. Synergy Telecommunication vide sale deed dated 29.9.2011. 6. Undisputedly, petitioner purchased the industrial concern M/s. Synergy Telecommunication vide sale deed dated 29.9.2011. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the property, which is subject matter of aforesaid sale deed, is land measuring 8-14 Bighas, situated in village Beer Plassi, Nalagarh, along with building and structure standing thereupon. It is also not in dispute that the value of land, so purchased by the petitioner, was assessed in the sale deed at Rs.36,00,000/-, by taking the land to be "Banjar Kadeem", whereas the value of the building was got assessed by the petitioner from the expert at Rs.10,00,000/- and, as such, the total value of the entire property was assessed at Rs.46,00,000/- and accordingly stamp duty of Rs.2,30,000/- was paid for the same. To the contrary, Sub Registrar, Nalagarh, after having received reference, arrived at a conclusion that value of the land was incorrectly assessed in the sale deed because the value of the property, which is subject matter of sale deed, was Rs.2,33,95,914/-, upon which stamp duty of Rs.11,69,796/- was required to be paid. 7. From the perusal of material adduced on record i.e. pleadings as well as documents annexed therewith juxtaposing the statement of RW-1 Chiragvir Singh, who is/was Managing Director of the respondent-factory, it clearly emerge that the value of the land measuring 8-14 Bighas was assessed on the basis of average price of the land situated in village Beer Plassi, prepared by Patwari concerned, who admittedly took the nature of land in question to be "Banjar Kadeem". Impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh, reveals that he also made assessment of the value of the property in question taking one year average cost of the land as Ex.AW-1/A, prepared by AW-1 Kulbhushan Sharma, the then Patwari. The abovementioned RW1 Chiragvir Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that at the time of execution of sale deed, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 was attached with the sale deed, according to which, out of 4 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.573/89, the land measuring 2-10 Bighas is/was recorded as "Tala Abal Chahi", whereas land measuring 1-10 Bighas is/was recorded as "Gairmumkin Abadi Tubewell". He further admitted that the land comprised in Khasra No.572/89 measuring 4-14 Bighas, which is also subject matter of the sale deed, is/was recorded to be "Tala Abal Chahi", meaning thereby that at the time of execution of the sale deed, nature of the land measuring 8-14 Bighas in the revenue record was not recorded to be "Banjar Kadeem", rather the same was recorded as "Tala Abal Chahi", and, as such, Sub Registrar, Nalagarh, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the value of the land as assessed in the sale deed cannot be held to be proper value of the land. 8. At the cost of repetition, it may also be noticed that it is not in dispute that the petitioner not only simply purchased the land from M/s. Synergy Telecommunication, rather it also purchased building of Industry already constructed over the land in dispute. Bare perusal of copies of sale deeds Ex.AW-2/A, Ex.AW-2/B, Ex.AW-2/D and Ex.AW-2/G, which came to be duly proved in the proceedings by AW-2 Pritmohinder Singh, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Nalagarh, clearly reveal that the same are also pertaining to the land situated in village Beer Plassi, where the land in dispute is situated and the sale deed Ex.AW-1/A, dated 4.9.2009 was executed about 2 years prior to the execution of the sale deed in the instant case. As per aforesaid sale deed, 25 Bighas of land came to be sold for Rs.1,40,12,500/-. Similarly, vide sale deed Ex.AW-2/B, dated 5.9.2009, pertaining to the land, situated in village Beer Plassi, measuring 11-1 Bighas came to be sold for a consideration of Rs.1,61,88,250/- and the said land was purchased by the industrial concern i.e. M/s Ashian Concrete & Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vide Ex.AW-2/D i.e. sale deed dated 8.9.2010, which was executed about one year prior to execution of the sale deed in the case at hand, land measuring 27 Bighas 4 Biswas, situated in village Beer Plassi, came to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs,1,80,06,400/-. Ex.AW-2/G is another sale deed, dated 11.1.2010, which was executed between the two industrial concern pertaining to the land again situated in village Beer Plassi, according to which, 17 Bighas 19 Biaswas of land has been sold for Rs.1,43,86,925/-. 9. Ex.AW-2/G is another sale deed, dated 11.1.2010, which was executed between the two industrial concern pertaining to the land again situated in village Beer Plassi, according to which, 17 Bighas 19 Biaswas of land has been sold for Rs.1,43,86,925/-. 9. Having carefully perused the aforesaid evidence led on record, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General that the value of the land as assessed in the sale deed in question cannot be held to be proper value of the land, because the value of land was much higher than the value of land mentioned in the sale deed in dispute. 10. Leaving everything aside, it may be noticed that petitioner not simply purchased the land from M/s Synergy Telecommunication, rather he purchased the industrial concern also and, as such. the value of the land so purchased by him cannot be equated with "Banjar Kadeem" land and, as such, learned Court below rightly held that since the petitioner purchased the industrial concern from M/s. Synergy Telecommunication, the highest value of the land in the vicinity should be taken into consideration for assessing the value of the property so purchased by the petitioner along with structure thereupon. In the case at hand, as clearly emerge from record, the Sub Divisional Collector, while assessing the value of the property, took the highest value of the land of the nature "Tala Abal Chahi" in the locality on the basis of average cost/value of the land Ex.AW-1/A, which was prepared by AW-1, the then Patwari concerned, and, as such, by no stretch of imagination it can be concluded that the Sub Divisional Collector committed any error while assessing the value of the property in dispute at Rs.1,23,29,850/-. 11. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no error in impugned judgment dated 21.2.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.9-NL/13 of 2014, affirming the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh in Case No.10/2011, and as such the same is up-held. Hence, present petition fails and is dismissed, accordingly. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.