Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Pradeep Abbi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4246 of 2019
Between:-
ANIL PRADEEP ABBI, S/O LATE HARIKRISHAN ABBI ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O M-229, BHARHUT NAGAR, SATNA ,
DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
....PETITIONER
(By Shri R.K. Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Saurabh Singh)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ,THR. CHIEF
CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY
BOARD OF REVENUE , GWALIOR,
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER / ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR OF STAMP SATNA,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
2
(By Shri Subodh Kathar, Govt. Advocate)
ORDER
This petition takes exception to the order dated 29.06.2019 (Annexure P-8), passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Rewa and the order dated 30.07.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Satna has been affirmed.
Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that petitioner entered into two separate agreements to sale dated 30.09.2000 (area 3.00 acres) and 06.08.2001 (area 1.7 acres) respectively with Kripal Singh and his legal heirs with regard to Khara No. 2/414, total area 4.07 acres for Rs. 3 lakhs and one lakh respectively. As per the agreements, the vendor after receiving the entire sale consideration had put the petitioner in possession of the land. It was agreed upon between the parties that the registry would be done after the name of LR's of Kripal Singh got mutated in the revenue records.
3
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the strength of these two agreements. An application under Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act was thereafter moved to impound the document as the agreements were not properly stamped. The trial Court allowed the application for impounding and referred the matter to Collector of Stamps, Satna for registration, who vide order dated 30.07.2016, imposed a duty of Rs.11,72,363/- and penalty of Rs.1,10,500/- on the agreement dated 30.09.2000 and Rs. 5,40,898/- and penalty of Rs.51,000/- on the agreement dated 06.08.2001.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2017. This order of the Commissioner was challenged before the Chief Controller, Revenue Authority, Gwalior, who dismissed the same by order dated 29.06.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while computing the stamp duty with regard to the agreements dated 30.09.2000 and 06.08.2001, the authority has lost the sight of the 4 fact that computation of stamp duty ought to have been done according to the market value of the land prevailing in the year 2000 and 2001, when the agreements were executed and not according to market value of the land prevailing at the time of registration. He further submits that the Collector cannot go beyond the terms of the documents when it is mentioned in the document that the entire consideration is passed and the possession delivered.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides as under :-
"47-A" Instruments undervalued, how to be, dealt with :--(1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (No.16 of 1908), while registering any instrument finds that the market value of any property which is the subject matter of such instrument has been set forth less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules under this Act, he shall before registering such instrument refer the same to the Collector for the determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
[(1-A) Where the market value as set forth in the instrument is not less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules under this Act, and the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he shall register such instrument and thereafter refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of such property and proper duty thereon.] 5 (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner, as may be prescribed, determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid.
The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
(3).....
(4).....
(5).....
(6).....
(7).....
(8).....
"Explanation-For the purpose of this Act, Market 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 or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument."
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision and explanation makes it clear that for the purpose of the Act, market value of the property shall be estimated on the date of execution of the instrument.
The scope of Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act vis-a-vis that of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. SRF Limited and others 2020 (2) MPLJ 472 and the Court has observed thus :-
6
22. Section 33 of the Stamp Act authorizes all public officers with certain exceptions, to examine every instrument chargeable with duty which comes before them in the performance of their official functions and to impound any instrument which appears not to be duly stamped. In the State of M.P. there is a State Amendment to the following effect:-
"Madhya Pradesh- In Section 33, after converting the full-stop, at the end of sub-section (1) into a colon, add the following proviso:
"Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section, shall be deemed to authorize the Collector to impound any instrument which has not been executed but is brought to him under section
31 for determining the duty with which the instrument is chargeable or any instrument which he is authorized to endorse under section 32."
Thus, it is evident that the officer before whom a document is brought is duty bound to impound such instrument if on examination it appears to such officer that instrument is not duly stamped. Only exception is a document which is produced before the authority under Section 31 for determining the duty for which the instrument is chargeable or not which he is authorized to endorse under Section 32.
23. Scope of Section 47A is different from the scope of Section
33. Section 47A as obtaining in the State of M.P. provides and deals with an instrument which is undervalued. Therefore, the scope of Section 47A is only to examine whether the properties mentioned in an instrument presented to the officer concerned is properly valued or not i.e. true and correct value of the property as per the market guidelines has been disclosed or not. Sub-Section 1 of Section 47A clearly provides that while registering any instrument, if the registering authority finds that the market-value of any property which is the subject matter of such instrument has 7 been set-forth less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules under this Act, he shall before registering such instrument refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market-value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Thus, there is no provision under Section 47-A to impound a document. It only deals with determination of market value, whereas Section 33 empowers an authority except an officer of police, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. In this Section, 'shall' cannot be read as 'may', as has been held by Supreme Court in case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720(735). Under Section 47A market value of any property, which is subject matter of conveyance as fixed by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or any authority or body incorporated by or under any law for the time being in force, 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 or would fetch, if sold in the market on the date of execution of instrument, whereas under Section 33 of the Stamp Act requirement is two fold; firstly to examine such document or conveyance whether such instrument is duly stamped or not and if in the opinion of such officer, it is not duly stamped, then to impound the same. Sub-section 2 of Section 33 clearly provides that for the purpose of Section 33 every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force when such instrument was executed or first executed. Once a document is impounded, then the course which follows is prescribed under Section 38 of the Stamp Act or under Section 40 or 41, as the case may be.
8
In the present case, the sale agreements were executed in the year 2000 and 2001. Collector guidelines for the year 2000-2001 are filed as Annexure P-6 to this petition and place the value of the land situated in village Shukla away from the road side as Rs.0.90 lakh per hectare, therefore, the stamp duty ought to have been assessed on the market rate/value prevailing in the year 2000, i.e., at the time of execution of the documents, whereas the Collector has assessed the stamp duty on the market value of the land prevailing in the year 2015-16, i.e., at the time of registration. The Collector has failed to apply himself and the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The Commissioner as well as the Chief Controller, Revenue Authority also misdirected themselves in considering that the Collector has assessed the stamp duty and penalty on the basis of guideline of 2000-2001.
In view of the aforestated, the order passed by the Collector and affirmed by the appellate authorities cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside. The petition stands allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT.gn GEETHA NAIR 2022.03.10 13:43:47 +05'30'