Delhi District Court
Smt. Samita Tyagi vs )Collector Of Stamps/Sdm on 10 August, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. P.S.TEJI : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE: DELHI
RCA No.21 of 2006
Smt. Samita Tyagi
W/o Sh. Raj Singh
R/o Village & PO Holambi Kalan,
Delhi. ...Appellant
Versus
1)Collector of Stamps/SDM
Nazafgarh, New Delhi.
2)SubRegistrar IX
District South West,
Kapashera, Delhi.
3)The State (NCT) of Delhi
Through its Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of Institution: 12.7.2006
Date of Judgment Reserved: 25.7.2007
Date of Judgment: 10.8.2007
J U D G M E N T
1 The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act against the order dated 2 19.6.2006, passed by the Collector of Stamps. 2 The facts in brief, as mentioned in the appeal, are that the appellant purchased land measuring 15 bigha 16 biswa and 10 biswansi at Village Shikarpur, New Delhi from Sh. Om Parkash for the total consideration of Rs.26,00,000/ and after that sale deed was presented for registration before respondent no.2 on 10.2.2005. On 10.2.2005, the sale deed was duly registered in the office of respondent no.2 as document No.1913, Book No.I, Volume No.1834 on pages 139 to 152. On the same day, special power of attorney was also executed bearing document No.1164, Book No.IV, Volume No.707 on pages 147 to 148, receipt number for sale was 4102 dated 10.2.2005 and SPA receipt number was 4113 dated 10.2.2005. The original sale deed and SPA were not returned to the appellant as per the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. On 11.2.2005, appellant moved an application under Right to Information Act asking reasons for nondelivery of 3 original sale deed and SPA. The Deputy Commission vide letter dated 28.2.2005 informed the appellant that the sale deed no.4102 dated 10.2.2005 could not be provided as the same had been impounded and sent to Collector of Stamps/SDM (Najafgarh) for necessary action. The appellant moved another application dated 10.3.2005 calling upon D.C., Kapashera to inform the reasons for impounding the sale deed, but no reply was given. It is further submitted that a notification dated 2.8.2001 was issued vide which the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi has notified minimum rates for valuation of agricultural land. The applicant moved another letter dated 12.4.2005 requesting therein for clarification and status of notification dated 2.8.2001 u/s 27(3) of Indian Stamp Act. Vide letter dated 4.5.2005 from DC (South West), it was informed that letter has been referred to law and judicial department. When there was no reply, the appellant served a legal notice dated 19.5.2005 to the respondent as well as Secretary (Revenue) to deliver back the original sale deed, GPA and for compensation. Thereafter vide 4 letter dated 3.10.2005, the SDM, Najafgarh asked the appellant to deposit stamp duty @ Rs.15,70,000/ per acre as prescribed by the Government. The appellant vide letter dated 8.10.2005 sought clarification regarding word "Prescribed". The appellant filed an appeal dated 16.1.2006 and the appellant was informed that the department is working as per circulars and as per new circular the minimum rate of valuation of rate of land was fixed Rs.17,58,400/. It is further submitted that a order bearing no. SDM/NG/2006/723 dated 20.6.2006 was received by the appellant which is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and unenforceable and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the appellant deposited the amount demanded in the said order on 27.6.2006 without prejudice to her rights and reserving her right to recover back the said amount. It is further submitted that as per Indian Stamp Act, duty leviable upon the above said sale deed is @ 3% on the sale consideration as the appellant is a woman and the transfer duty is @ 3% vide notification dated 2.6.2003. It is further submitted that 5 no power is conferred upon the Collector to levy any penalty under the above said Amended Section 47A of the Act. It is further submitted that vide order dated 19.6.2006/20.6.2006, the SDM called upon the appellant to deposit short duty of Rs.1,52,566/ including transfer duty and penalty two times of short stamp duty i.e. Rs.1,52,566/ as per Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which is liable to be set aside.
3 The appellant has taken the ground that the order dated 19.6.2006 is illegal and the Collector of Stamps has exercised the powers not vested on him. The appellant has further taken the ground that the Collector is not having any power to levy the penalty. The appellant has further taken the ground that the Collector has committed illegality while directing the appellant to pay the stamp duty on the amount of Rs.51,76,094/ instead of Rs.26 lacs. The appellant has further taken the ground that the order of Collector in calculating the transfer duty on the amount of 6 Rs.51,76,094/ is nullify and transfer duty can be levied only on Rs.26 lacs. The appellant has further taken the ground that the collector has misunderstood Section 148 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and has misinterpreted Subsection 8 of Section 481 and Bye Laws of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (Duty on Transfer of Property) ByeLaws 1960. The appellant sought set asiding of order passed by the Collector and refund of the amount deposited on 27.6.2006.
4 I have heard the counsel for the appellant and gone through the material available on record. 5 It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the land was purchased by the appellant for a sum of Rs.26 lacs. It is further argued that the sale deed and the general power of attorney were presented before the competent authority for its registration. It is further argued that the documents were not 7 returned to the appellant and later on it was informed that the sale deed and the general power of attorney have been impounded by the authorities. It is further argued that the respondent i.e. Collector of Stamps/SDM has wrongly imposed the penalty upon the appellant. It is further argued that as per Stamp Act, the duty leviable upon the females is @ 3% of the amount of sale consideration. It is further argued that the stamp duty was rightly paid by the appellant. It is further argued that the Collector was not authorized to impose the penalty.
6 The perusal of record shows that a sale deed dated 28.1.2005 was executed by one Sh. Om Parkash in favour of the appellant Smt. Samita Tyagi. By virtue of said sale deed, Sh. Om Parkash sold 15 bigha 16 biswas and 10 biswansi at Village Shikarpur, New Delhi to the appellant. The land was sold to the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs. The sale deed further shows that a total sum of Rs.1,56,000/ was paid as 8 stamp duty and corporation tax. The corporation tax and stamp duty was paid @ 3% of the sale consideration of Rs.26 lacs. A letter dated 11.2.2005 was written by the Sub RegistrarIX, District South West to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Vide this letter, the Sub Registrar has requested the SDM to revalue the sale deed as the same was undervalued in view of the minimum agricultural rates of the agricultural land. It is matter of record that the Government has notified the minimum rates of agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000/ per acre. In view of the minimum rates of agricultural land fixed by the Government, the land contained in the sale deed was valued at Rs.51,76,094/. The Collector of Stamps/ SDM/respondent vide order dated 20.6.2006 has observed that the parties had undervalued the land under dispute for a sum of Rs.26,00,000/ only.
7 The order which the appellant has challenged is order passed by Collector of Stamps/respondent dated 20.6.2006. 9 Vide this order, the respondent has found that the appellant had undervalued the land under the sale deed and paid the less stamp duty on the same. It is also observed by the respondent that the actual valuation of the land was Rs.51,76,094/ and it was directed that the appellant shall pay the short duty of Rs.1,52,566/ including transfer duty and penalty two times of short stamp duty i.e. Rs.1,52,566/.
8 Section 40 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 empowers the Collector to stamp instruments impounded. Section 40 of the Act reads as under: "40. Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded. (1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under section 38, subsection (2), not being an instrument chargeable [with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise] only or a bill of exchange or promissory note, he shall adopt the following procedure:
(a) if he is of opinion that such instrument is 10 duly stamped, or is not chargeable with duty, he shall certify by endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped, or that it is not so chargeable, as the case may be;
(b) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of the five rupees; or, if he thinks fit, [an amount not exceeding] ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof, whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees."
9 The aforementioned Section 40 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 empowers the Collector to impose the penalty in cases where the instrument is not properly stamped. The Collector has been empowered to impose the penalty upto ten times of the proper duty or of the deficient portion. In the present case, the respondent no.1 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 40 of the Indian Stamps Act imposed the penalty two times of the short stamp duty i.e. Rs.1,52,566/. Admittedly, the appellant has 11 already deposited the amount of penalty imposed by the Collector. Thus, it is the established position that respondent no.1 imposed the penalty upon the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant has undervalued the land in question and less stamp duty was paid.
10 Consequently, it is held that the penalty has rightly been imposed by the respondent upon the appellant and no ground is made out by the appellant for set asiding the order dated 20.6.2006. The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 11 File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
on August 10th, 2007 Addl. District Judge
Delhi