Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Qadir Bhat And Ors vs Ut Of Jk And Ors on 31 March, 2021
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Serial No. 186
Suppl. list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 613/2021
CM No. 1845/2021
Ghulam Qadir Bhat and Ors.
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Ms. Shiva Sharma, Advocate
V/s
UT of JK and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. D. C. Raina, Advocate General with Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge (ORDER) 31.03.2021 Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioners have called in question Circular dated 30.12.2020 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, J&K, Jammu whereby all Registrars and Sub-Registrars have been asked to charge stamp duty as per new rates w.e.f. 01.01.2021, irrespective of the date of uploading of documents onto the NGDRS, date of filing of the documents with the Registrars/Sub-
Registrars. It is the case of the petitioners that they had executed a sale deed on 29.12.2020 and the same was uploaded for its presentation for registration before the Sub-Registrar. It is averred that in the meantime, vide notification dated 30.12.2020 issued by the District Collector, Chairman District Valuation.
WP (C) No. 125/2021 Board, Srinagar, the market rate of the land at District Srinagar came to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2021. It is further averred that when the document of the petitioners came up for registration before the Sub-Registrar concerned, they were asked to affix stamp duty in terms of the revised market rates, though they had affixed the stamp duty in terms of the market rates applicable as on the date of execution of the document.
In the back-drop of the aforesaid facts, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the date of the execution of a document determines the rate at which stamp duty has to be affixed on a document and not the date on which, the document is actually registered by the Sub-Registrar. To support her contention, learned counsel has referred to Section 47 of Registration Act, according to which, a document, irrespective of date of its registration, takes effect from the date of its execution. She has further argued that the Inspector General of Registration has no jurisdiction to issue a circular in respect of charging of stamp duties.
The petition raises important questions of law. The same is, accordingly, admitted to hearing.
Notice, waived by Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG on behalf of respondents. List for consideration on 02.04.2021 along with WP(C) No. 125/2021, as also all other identical petitions, list whereof shall be furnished by Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, to the Registry, as the issue involved is purely legal and can be addressed by the learned Advocate General, who is incidentally available in the Court.
In the meantime, the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, J&K, Jammu is stayed and respondent No. 6 is directed to consider the document in question presented by the petitioners for its Registration and in case the same fulfils all other requirements of law and rules, the document be admitted to Registration without insisting in payment of stamp duty on revised rates, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioners that in case they fail in this petition, they shall make good the deficiency of stamp duty.
Copy of the order be provided to learned counsels appearing for the parties, under the seal and signature of the Bench Secretary.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge SRINAGAR 31.03.2021 "Mohammad Yasin Dar"
MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2021.04.02 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document