Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 February, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.17765 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17765 of 2009
Date of Decision: 12.02.2013
Balwinder Kaur and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioners purchased 50 kanals 17 marlas of agricultural land situate in the revenue estate of Village Chahal, District Faridkot vide registered sale deed No.910 dated 20.05.2005 for Rs.18,11,532/- at the rate of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre. The sale deed was registered at collector rates prevalent in the year 2005 and stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,14,500/- was paid.
On 18.12.2007 the petitioners received a show cause notice from the District Collector, Faridkot calling upon them to deposit additional stamp duty of Rs.85,721/- for the reason that an Audit Party of the office of an Accountant General, Punjab for the period 2005-06 found deficiencies in payment of stamp duty and in addition further sums on account of 3% social security fees remaining unpaid because the land in question was within the area of 5 Kms. of Municipal limits of Faridkot attracting the payment over and above the stamp duty.
CWP No.17765 of 2009-2-
The Tehsildar made a report that the market value of the said land was Rs.3,50,000/- per acre upon which the petitioner was ordered to deposit stamp duty @9%; 6% towards stamp duty and 3% towards social security fees.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot which was dismissed on 09.09.2009. Earlier the assessment made by the Tehsildar was accepted by the Collector and in the appeal, the order has been upheld.
It is the case of the petitioners that the decision is erroneous apparent on the face of record with no evidence to establish higher rates of Rs.3,50,000/- chargeable as against the collector/circle rates of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is well settled that collector rates are only indicative of market value and are aimed at raising the eyebrows on suspicious sales in the context of payment of stamp duty. Determination of market value of land over and above collector rates can be determined only after following procedure prescribed by law as explained by the Division Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 217.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an audit objections raised by the Accountant General, Punjab is not relevant material for determining market value of land as that office has no wherewithal to determine market value of land nor is competent authority to do so. In any case, it is not alone sufficient to warrant reopening of the matter under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners rely upon an CWP No.17765 of 2009 -3- order passed by the Collector, Faridkot dated 10.01.2008 (P-4) in the case of one Yadwinder Singh who had entered into a registered sale deed with a vendor on 30.06.2006 in respect of land measuring 48 kanals in Village Chahal itself, the market value of which has been assessed at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Inter alia, parity of treatment is claimed in this petition.
In the written statement filed by the Collector, Faridkot though it has been stated that the case of Yadwinder Singh is totally different from the instant case yet no reason is forthcoming as to why the two cases are dissimilar. In that case, apart from sale consideration which was accepted as correct, the 3% additional stamp duty as social security fund was found not paid/levied and should be made good in accordance with the notification dated 28.02.2005 promulgating Ordinance 2005 amending the principal Act, that is, the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 2005.
In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that the 3% cess remains unpaid and the petitioners undertake to make good that payment. It is submitted that the rate list of rural areas in Kanungo, Circle applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2005 proposes a rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for village Chahal which is mentioned at Sr. No.5 of the collector rates placed at Annexure P-1. Therefore, the action of the respondents based on an audit objection was unfair and unreasonable as being the sole determining factor of market value of the land transferred under the disputed registered sale deed, or operating reason justifying impounding the same. In the absence of any distinguishing features in the case of the petitioners and that of Yadwinder Singh pertaining to the same village the transfers taking place at about the same time under registered CWP No.17765 of 2009 -4- sale deeds before the same registering authority. The procedure prescribed under the Act and rules to determine market value on the basis of enquiry and evidence was not followed as explained in Naresh Kumar case supra and further that collector rates may be used only as prima facie material to alert the authority regarding the value of land but it cannot in itself be the sole determining factor, plus or minus, and an independent enquiry is required to be held. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner must satisfy the tests of orders of a quasi judicial authority, where such orders are subject to judicial review by the High Court for the Court to know reasons on the basis of which conclusions have been recorded. I therefore see no merit in the contention of the learned State counsel that there has been undervaluation in this case and am unable to persuade myself to uphold the impugned orders.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.12.2007 and 09.09.2009 (P-2) & (P-3) are set aside. This would, however, not mean that the 3% additional stamp duty is not to be paid by the petitioners. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Faridkot with liberty to call upon the petitioners to deposit the amount representing 3% extra stamp duty on account of social security fees which remains unpaid. The petitioners undertake to deposit the amount on the first date of hearing which would result in regularizing sale deed No.910 dated 20.05.2005.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 12.02.2013 manju