Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1004 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Ved Prakash

2023-03-13

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

body2023
JUDGMENT Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - CM-764-LPA-2019 Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 695 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 17.02.2017 of the learned Single Judge. Notice of the same application was issued on 25.02.2019 but no reply has been filed by the respondent till now. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application and in view of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Resultantly, the present application is allowed and the delay of 695 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of. LPA-344-2019 (O&M) Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-20848-2014, titled Ved Parkash v. State of Punjab and others, which has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.02.2017 passed in CWP-8346-2015, titled Asha Rani v. Commissioner. Jallandhar Division and another. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that the respondent purchased a plot measuring 01 kanal and 06 maria, vide sale deed No. 7458, dated 22.02.2012. The said sale deed was impounded by the Sub-Registrar, Bamala, and it was sent to the District Collector, Bamala, for assessment under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-State further submitted that in order to verify the factual position, the Collector Bamala (respondent No. 3) visited the plot in question in the presence of the respondent and the revenue officials found that the plot in question is situated on the Kundi Road Bamala and Shiv Rice Mills (Sheller) is existing on it, as well as a boundary wall has been constructed and wheat was found stored on the spot. It was found that the property was being used as a commercial property. Finding that Collector rate of a commercial property for the year 2011-12 has been fixed as ^11,500/- per yard, the order dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Collector to recover the deficiency in the stamp duty and the registration fee. Even the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), considering the facts that the verification and spot inspection was made by the Collector himself along with the field staff. 4. Even the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), considering the facts that the verification and spot inspection was made by the Collector himself along with the field staff. 4. The learned counsel for appellants-State further submitted that in such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deciding CWP-20848-2011 filed by the respondent in terms of the decision in CWP-8346-2015, titled Asha Rani v. Commissioner. Jallandhar Division and another, is not sustainable. Moreover, the decision in Asha Rani's case {supra), has also been assailed by way of fling a separate Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 849 of 2017. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the decision in Asha Rani's case {supra), submitted that the order passed by the Collector and the appellate authority have been rightly set aside by the learned Singe Judge. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the paper-book. 7. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the Civil Writ Petition filed by the respondent-Ved Prakash in terms of the order dated 17.02.2017 passed in Asha Rani's case {supra), wherein it was observed that the Collector after receipt of the report did not conduct an independent inquiry in terms of the provision of Section 47-A of the Act. The Ld. Single Judge has relied upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab" AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 26 and "State of Punjab v. Mohabir Singh" 1996(1) RR 588. In the said case, the basis of the order passed by the Collector was Collector's rate and independent evidence to return a finding in respect of the market value of the land by giving reference to any sale instance in the neighbourhood or any other evidence was not conducted as such the Division Bench held that the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner suffered from patent illegality and material irregularity. 8. 8. Perusal of the order dated 17.07.2012 passed by respondent No.3-Collector, Bamala (Annexure P-2) as well as the order passed by the Commissioner dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) reveals that the Collector's rate fixed for "commercial property" has been treated as the valuation of the property in question on the basis of the inspection made by respondent No.3-Collector herself. Neither the Collector has considered any evidence by way of any sale instance in the neighbourhood nor the Collector has given any opportunity to the vendor to produce any such evidence before fixing the market value of the land in question. Both the orders passed by the Collector (Annexure P-2) as well as the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner (Ex.P-4) are silent with regard to any inquiry having been conducted to ascertain the market value of the land. The Collector rate as such cannot be fixed as the market value of the land in question in view of the ratio of the decision in Chamkaur Singh's case {supra) by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As such the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality. More so, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act provides a procedure for dealing with the instruments which are undervalued. The said Section reads as under:- "47-A, Instruments under-valued, how to be dealt with:- [1] If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon; and [2] On receipt of reference under Sub-section(l). the Collector shall after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforeaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any. the Collector shall after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforeaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any. alongwith interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty. Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three percent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or laps on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property. Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three percent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or laps on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property. [3] The Collector may, suo motu, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the properly or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument , call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty, if any, would be payable by the person liable to pay duty; Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property. [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 that order, prefer an appeal before the [Commissioner] and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. [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 that order, prefer an appeal before the [Commissioner] and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument relating to the transfer of such property, '' (emphasis laid)" 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the provisions contained in Section 47-A of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are illegal and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 47-A of the Act. However, since the action was initiated within a period of limitation as such it would be in the interest of justice, if the matter is relegated to the Collector for passing a fresh order in terms of Section 47-A of the Act after holding an enquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act. 10. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the matter is remanded to the Collector, Barala, for fresh decision in terms of Section 47-A of the Act, after holding an enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.