Delhi High Court
Kikki Farms (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs Additional District Magistrate And ... on 25 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: 51(1993)DLT1, 1993(26)DRJ361
JUDGMENT Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) This bunch of ten writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed praying that a mandamus be issued directing respondent 110.3 to register the document in favor of the petitioners in respect of the land purchased by them by way of sale deed.
(2) The respondents had refused to register the sale deed on the ground; i) that No Objection Certificate was not obtained by the petitioners under the provisions of Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfers) Act, 1972; and ii) that the Inspector General of Registration/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had issued instructions to the Sub Registrar vide office order dated 19th March 1990 fixing the minimum rate of land at Rs.4.65 lacs per acre in respect of land which was not in the River Belt and since the consideration mentioned in the sale deed is less than Rs.4.65 lacs per acre the sale deed cannot be registered.
(3) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in Cwp 1268 of 1989 decided on 28th July 1989 has held that No Objection Certificate is not required to be obtained when the land is not under acquisition and thus the insistence of the respondents for filing the No Objection Certificate is unwarranted. It was further submitted that it was not open to the respondents to issue office instructions fixing the minimum rate of consideration as done vide office instructions issued by respondents 4 and 5 and non-registration of the sale deed on that ground is unjustified.
(4) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that what is required to be obtained is a status report which take into consideration not only the question of acquisition but even other aspects like violation of Section 33 of the Land Reforms Act and violation of the provisions of the East Punjab Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. Learned counsel submitted that unless the status report is obtained, the Sale Deed could not be registered. He further submitted that there was a tendency to under-value land prices for the purpose of registration of sale deed in Delhi in order to save the stamp duty. Furthermore, one of the considerations for determination of compensation for land proposed to be acquired was the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed and due to under valuation the farmers were being paid lesser compensation. Thus, it was felt necessary to fix the minimum rate or the land as was done in other States like Uttar Pradesh so that the interest of farmers could be protected. It was submitted that non-registration of the sale deed on the ground that consideration is less than Rs.4.65 lacs per acre is legal and justified.
(5) During the course of arguments, since the applications filed by the petitioners for obtaining No Objection Certificates were already pending with the respondents, we had directed the respondents to scrutinise the applications and the respondents have given the status report to the petitioners. In view of this position we do not propose to go into the question regarding requirement of obtaining status report in these writ petitions. The only question, therefore, for consideration is whether the respondents could by issuing office instructions refuse to register sale deed on the ground that the sale consideration was less than the rate fixed by respondents 4 and 5.
(6) The Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co.Ltd. vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Another, has observed that Section 27 of the Stamp Act requires the parties to a document to set forth in the document fully and truly the consideration, if any, and all other facts affecting the chargeability of that document with the duty or the amount of duty with which it is chargeable. Though failure to comply with the requirement of that section is punishable under section 64, no provision in the Stamp Act empowers the Revenue to make an independent inquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable. For the purpose of Article 23, the value of consideration must be taken to be one as set-forth in the conveyance deed.
(7) A Full Bench of this Court in O.N.Talwar vs. The Collector of Stamps,2nd (1972) I Delhi page 137 has observed as under:- "THE scheme of the Act would thus show that for the purpose of stamp law the valuation given in the instrument would have to be accepted. If there was an intentional under-valuation then the prosecution would protect .the government against the attempted fraud. As the Registrar has been give no power under the Act to hold an enquiry to find out about the market value, the value must be mentioned in the document itself, it is for this reason that Section 27 of the Act requires that facts and other circumstances must be fully and truly set forth therein. A further safeguard is provided that if the same have not been set forth as required by Section 27 and the omission is with intent to defraud the government the person is liable for prosecution under Section 64. This is one safeguard that is provided in the Stamp Act for deliberate and intentional under valuation of the property being given by the executant of the deed."
(8) A similar view has been expressed by the Patna High Court at Bihar in Mahaliram Singhania & Others vs. Upendra Nath Pandey & Other ,by Bombay High Court in Ramachandra Vishwanath Ghaisas & Others vs. The State of Maharashtra, and by Allahabad High Court in Kaka Singh vs. The Additional Collector & Distt.Magistrate & Anr. , (9) The guidelines laying down the floor or the minimum price of different kinds and qualities of land on the basis of their situation or location for purposes of registration of instrument relating to transferring of any property came up for consideration before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Chamkaur Singh & Another vs. The State of Punjab & Another, . In that case, instructions styled as guidelines were received by the Sub Registrar (Tehsildar), Samana from the Collector (Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar),Patiala laying down the floor or the minimum price of different kinds and qualities of land on the basis of their situation or location for purposes of registration of instruments relating to transferring of any property, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that every executive action if it is to operate to (the prejudice of any person must be supported by some legislative authority. No guidelines can possibly be issued or laid down for controlling the quasi judicial function of a particular functionary or authority under a particular statute. As per sub-section (1) of Section 47A while registering the instrument of transfer the Registering Officer has to take his independent decision which is quasi judicial in nature and thus any guidelines issued to the Registering Officer nullifying the explanation to the section were contrary to the plain language and indictment of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 47A. Such instructions hardly left anything open to the Registering Officer and the Collector to determine the estimated value of all the property, the subject matter of a particular transaction.
(10) In the case before us there is only an office order issued by respondents 4 and 5 to the Registering Officer and there is no legislative mandate for that purpose. The respondents have referred to fixation of minimum rates for land in the State of Uttar Pradesh, however admittedly there is a specific provision under the U.P.Stamp Rules which provides minimum price of land for the purpose of stamp duty for different categories of land. Thus, there can be no comparison with the position prevalent in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As far as Delhi is concerned, there is no provision like Section 47A of the Stamp Act as applicable in Punjab. The reason given by the respondent for fixing the minimum land rate is far from satisfactory. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted at this stage that further instructions have been issued by the respondent that if the petitioners pay stamp duty on Rs.4.65 lacs per acre even though the consideration amount may be less, the sale deed be registered. This, according to us, cannot be done in view of the settled principles of law as set out herein above. If the instruments gives the amount of consideration paid, the stamp duty has to be calculated on the basis of the price mentioned in the instrument. It is open to the respondent to take action under Section 64 of the Act in case on inquiries thereafter it is found that the land has been undervalued. The question of adequate compensation payable to farmers on the basis of actual market value is to be decided in separate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and is extraneous as far as the registration of the document is concerned. It is not open to fix a minimum rate of land on the ground that at some later stage the land may be acquired and compensation would be payable to the farmers.
(11) In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. We direct the respondents to register the sale deed of the petitioners forthwith. No costs.