Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Orient Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 27 September, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.4534 of 1999 PETITIONER:
Orient Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) having its Registered Office, at Vadodara in State of Gujarat-Through its Managing Director-Darshan A. Shah son of Shri Arvind Bhai Shah, resident of Vadodara (Guj.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS:
1.The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps), Govt. of Raj., Jaipur.
2.The Collector (Stamps), Circle-Pali, Pali (Marwar).
3.The Sub Registrar, Abu Road, District, Sirohi.
Date of Order: 27.9.2016 HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.
Mr. Khet Singh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Parwat Singh for Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit, for the Respondents.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.8.99 of the Collector (Stamp), Pali, whereby while 2 accepting the reference made by the Senior Account Officer, Registration & Stamp, Rajasthan, under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('the Act') as adapted by the State of Rajasthan, the deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty payable on a sale deed executed by one Shri Bajrang Singh in favour of the petitioner has been determined.
2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner submitted a sale deed of an agriculture land purchased for consideration of Rs.2,53,000/- for registration before the Sub Registrar, Sirohi. The Sub Registrar assessed the market value of the property at Rs.4,16,240/- and accordingly, determined the stamp duty and registration charges payable, which were deposited by the petitioner and the document was returned to the petitioner after registration. Later, on the basis of audit objection, the matter was referred by the Senior Account Officer, Registration & Stamp, Rajasthan, Ajmer to the Collector (Stamp) for determination of deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty. The Collector (Stamp) assessed the market value of the property at Rs.12,48,720/- on the ground that since the property is situated on the main road, it is bound to be used for non- 3 agriculture purpose and accordingly assessed the market value thereof as aforesaid, treating the property to be residential and created a demand against the petitioner for deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty quantified at Rs.84,748/-. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Collector (Stamp) has seriously erred in holding that the property in question is intended to be used for non agriculture purpose and therefore, its market value has to be determined, treating it to be residential. Learned counsel submitted that the market value of the property, subject matter of the instrument presented for registration has to be determined on the basis of the use of the property at the time of transaction taking place and the possible use of the property in future for different purpose is absolutely not relevant and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Collector (Stamp) is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Anr.' 2012 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 402.
4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if prima facie it is found that 4 the land is being used for residential or non agriculture purposes, then, the market value of the land has to be determined at the rate of 3 times of the value of the agriculture land. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Collector (Stamp) has committed no error in determining the market value of the property, treating the same to be residential and thus, the demand for deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty created against the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is settled law that the market value of the property subject matter of an instrument produced for registration has to be assessed on the basis of nature of the property as on the date of execution of the instrument , the possible future use of the property is hardly of any relevance and no assessment of the market value of the property can be made keeping in view the intended use of the property by the beneficiary of the instrument. It has come on record that the property in question was an agriculture land at the time of execution of the sale deed and the registration thereof and therefore, the stamp duty and registration charges having been paid by the petitioner as determined 5 by the Sub Registrar, Sirohi, there was no occasion for the Senior Account Officer, Registration & Stamp to make a reference to the Collector (Stamp) under Section 47A of the Act. As a matter of fact, even subsequent conversion of the land for non agricultural use, cannot be made basis for levy of the stamp duty and registration charges, presuming that the land was intended to be used for residential/commercial purpose at the time of registration.
7. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the the Collector(Stamp), Pali, is ex facie erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated dated 3.8.99 of the Collector (Stamp), Pali, is set aside. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
vij