Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Rakshpal Kaur And Others on 24 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003
Date of Decision:24.03.2014
State of Punjab and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Rakshpal Kaur and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for the petitioner.
Nemo for the respondents despite service.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially, respondent-vendee Surjit Singh Dhillon son of Gurdial Singh Dhillon (since deceased), now being represented by respondent Nos.1 to 4, had purchased the plot/property, in question, vide registered sale-deed dated 14.03.2000. According to the Sub-Registrar, the respondent- vendee would have to pay more stamp duty at the market value than that of paid by him. Consequently, he referred the matter to the Collector for deciding the question of valuation of market price and stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act & relevant Rules framed thereunder").
2. Sequelly, the Collector assessed the value of the plot in Rani Seema 2014.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003 2 question and ordered the recovery of stamp fees for remaining valuation of `8 lacs vide order dated 10.08.2000.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the original vendee- Surjit Singh Dhillon, was accepted and the order of the Collector was set aside, by means of impugned judgment dated 27.08.2002 by the Additional District Judge(Appellate Court).
4. Likewise, petitioners-State of Punjab and its officers did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned judgment, invoking the provisions under Section 115 CPC.
5. As, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, despite service, therefore, after hearing the learned State Counsel, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.
6. As is evident from the record that, the Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Collector by way of impugned judgment dated 27.08.2002. The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Appellate Court, to set aside the order was that, neither any criteria has been adopted, nor proper enquiry was held in assessing the market value of the plot in question by the Collector.
7. Here to me, the Appellate Court has rightly observed that neither any criteria was adopted nor proper enquiry was conducted to determine the market value of the disputed property by the Collector. It is now well-settled principle of law that the Collector has the mandatory/statutory duty to hold an enquiry to determine the market price Rani Seema 2014.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003 3 for the purpose of stamp duty in the same manner prescribed by the Act and the relevant Rules, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties in this regard and not otherwise. He was required to provide an adequate opportunity to the vendee to produce the evidence available or collected by him. Not only that, the vendee can also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence collected by the competent authority in this regard. This matter is no more res integra and is now well-settled.
8. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this court in case Lalita Devi v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division,Gurgaon 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 653, it was ruled as under:-
"Before passing an order under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A, the Collector, is under a statutory duty to hold an enquiry and also give opportunity to the vendee and the Sub Registrar to project their respective cases on the issue of determination of the value of the land or property which is subject-matter of the deed. The Collector is also required to disclose the evidence collected during the course of enquiry or otherwise and give opportunity to both the parties to support or controvert such evidence. In the present case, the Collector neither made enquiry envisaged by Section 47-A(2) and Rule 4 nor did he give opportunity to the petitioners to explain the circumstances appearing before them or to rebut the evidence collected at the time of inspection. In view of this, we do not have the slightest hesitation to hold that the order Annexure P1 is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 47-A(2), read with Rule 4 and the rules of natural justice".
9. Again, this Court in case The Mohali Club, Mohali, through its President Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 69, has formulated the following legal formalities, while determining the market value for the purpose of stamp duty:-
Rani Seema2014.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003 4
"a). The Registering Officer, after registration may refer the documentation, for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there is deliberate under valuation. (see Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act).
b). The reference is not a mechanical act but the Registering Officer shall have a basis for coming to a prima facie finding that there is an under valuation.(V.N.Devadoss's case).
c). The circle rate or the Collector's rate (determined in the State of Punjab in the manner provided under Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamps (Dealing of Under Valued Instruments) Rules shall afford such basis. (K.S.Jhamb's case (DB); Manoj Kumar's case (SC).
d). The circle rate or the Collector's rate shall normally be with reference to the date of execution of sale and registration and not the valuation on the date of agreement or the date of allotment.(State of Rajasthan's case).
e). The Registering Officer shall have no need, normally to suspect the valuation relating to the property valuation, when the State or its instrumentalities themselves have determined the market valuation or when the market valuation is best obtained through competitive bidding (V.N.Devadoss's case (SC)).
f). If the date of auction/allotment and payment of installment are distanced by a long period to the date of execution of sale or registration, the issue of the valuation for the purpose of stamps could be controlled by specific Rules and the contingencies provided under the Rules will have to be strictly applied for taking the benefit under the Rules (See Rule 3-B and the contingencies mentioned therein)".
10. Meaning thereby, the Collector did not determine the market value in accordance with law and the Appellate Court has rightly so concluded. Be that as it may, in that eventuality, the Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter back to the Collector for fresh determination of the market value of the house in dispute, after following the indicated procedure. To that extent, the impugned judgment cannot legally be maintained and deserves to be set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
Rani Seema 2014.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1010 of 2003 5
11. No other legal point, worth consideration has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent enquiry by the Collector, the instant petition is hereby partly accepted. The impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Collector for fresh determination of market value of the disputed property at the relevant time, in the manner depicted here-in-above and in accordance with law.
March 24, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.03.28 10:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh