Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar S/O Sh. Sohan vs Director General Of Civil Aviation And ... on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION 3005 OF 2021
Between:-
ASHOK KUMAR S/O SH. SOHAN
LAL R/O WARD NO. 11, P.O AND
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB DISTT. .....PETITIONER
SIRMOUR, H.P.
(BY AJAY K. DHIMAN ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(REVENUE), TO THE GOVT. OF
H.P. SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL
REGISTRATION-CUM-DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS H.P. SHIMLA.
3. SUB REGISTRAR (NAIB
TEHSILDAR) PAONTA SAHIB
DISTT. SIRMOUR, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.
RAJENDER DOGRA, SR.
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, SH. SHIV PAL
MANHANS, SH. HEMANSHU
MISRA, ADDL. A.G., AND SH.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:56 :::CIS
2
BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. A.G
FOR RESPONDENTS-STATE)
____________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok
.
Singh Chauhan, delivered the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:-
a) "That the excess amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- may be refunded to the petitioner.
b) That the petition may be treated as PIL and all the Registrars/Sub Registrar in the State of H.P. may be directed to refund the excess fee charged in various documents which may have been registered by them and where fee in access of Rs. 25,000/- has been levied."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased a house from one Sh. Shanti Swaroop Mittal for a sale consideration of Rs.
1,40,00,000/- . It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents could have claimed a stamp duty of only Rs. 25,000/- in terms of notification no. Rev.1-9(stamps) 3/79 dated 13.04.1999. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- which was claimed towards stamp duty deserves to be refunded back to the petitioner.
3. The respondents have filed the reply wherein number of preliminary objections have been taken questioning the very maintainability ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:56 :::CIS 3 and locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition. In addition thereto, it is averred that the registration fee that is being charged strictly in .
accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (H.P. Amendment Act, 1968).
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
5. At the outset it needs to be observed that the instant petition has been filed in to the ignorance to the notification dated 12.01.2012, whereby the earlier notification dated 13.4.1999(supra) has been superseded and now in terms of superseded notification dated 12.01.2012, it clearly provided that the rate of registration fee on conveyance of sale deed will be @ 2% of the market value of the property or consideration amount whichever is higher, subject to minimum of rupees one hundred and fee rounded off to nearest Rupee ten shall be charged.
6. This notification is in consonance with Sections 78 and 79 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (HP Amendment Act, 1968).
7. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge this notification by amending the petition. The earlier notification dated 13.4.1999 was in the nature of executive notification which was issued for guidance and implemention of the scheme of the Act and does not have a force of law. This could have been issued by the Competent Authority and subsequently altered, replaced and even substituted at any time.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:56 :::CIS 48. Executive instructions which are issued for guidance and to implement the scheme of the Act and do not have the force of law, can be .
issued by the competent authority and altered, replaced and substituted at any time. (Refer Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Association of India (ALPAI) and others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and others in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 435.) Since the earlier executive instructions issued vide notification dated 13.4.1999 have been legally superseded by subsequent notification dated 12.01.2012, and the said notification otherwise has not assailed, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Satyen Vaidya) Judge August 25 , 2021 (himani) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:56 :::CIS