The main legal point established in the judgment is that stamp duty is assessed on the value of consideration set forth in the instrument to be stamped, and the Collector is required to determine the value of the property or consideration and assess the deficient duty by making necessary enquiry.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 09.07.2018 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the ADJ, Patiala House Court (hereafter ‘the District Court’).

2. By the impugned order, the District Court has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 47A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter ‘the Stamp Act’), against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the respondent. The District Court has upheld the decision rendered by the respondent directing the petitioner to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs.36,86,949/-.

3. The controversy involved in the present petition pertains to the Stamp Duty payable on a Sale Deed with respect to the roof rights of the property bearing no. C-3/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi along with the proportionate title/interest in the land measuring 344.44 square meters (hereafter ‘the Property’). The said immovable property comprised of a plot of land and a building constructed thereof. The petitioner has acquired the roof rights over the second floor of the building and the proportionate rights in the land beneath. The petitioner claims that the stamp duty is required to be assessed on the consideration as stated in the Sale Deed or the market value of the Property, as on the date when the concerned parties entered into an agreement to sell and purchase the Property. The respondent (Collector of Stamps) disputes the same and contends that the stamp duty is payable on the basis of the market value of the Property as on the date of the execution of the Sale Deed.

4. On 08.05.2012, the petitioner entered into the Agreement to Sell with the one Mr Onkar Singh (the Vendor) for purchasing the Property. The petitioner states that the purchase consideration for the Property was agreed at Rs.52,00,000/-. He also claims that that the said amount was paid; however, the Vendor refused to execute the Sale Deed. This led the petitioner to file a Civil Suit for specific performance before this Court – CS (OS) 689/2013 titled “Harjinder Pal Singh v. Onkar Singh” – in April, 2013.

5. In July, 2013, the petitioner and the Vendor filed a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the said parties agreed that the petitioner would pay a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs and the Vendor (the defendant in the suit) would execute a sale deed in respect of the Property. The petitioner claims that even though he paid the additional consideration of Rs.10 lakhs as agreed, the Vendor failed to comply with the terms of the settlement and did not execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Property. Consequently, in October, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for execution of the decree – being Ex. P. 235/2013 captioned “Harjinder Pal Singh v. Onkar Singh” – before this Court. On 15.12.2015, this Court passed an order appointing Sh Rajeev Kumar Bhardwaj, an officer of this Court to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the Property.

6. The Sale Deed was executed on 10.05.2015 by Sh Rajeev Kumar Bhardwaj and on 11.05.2016, was presented for registration before the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar.

7. The petitioner paid a stamp duty of Rs.3,12,000/-, which was assessed on the consideration of Rs.52,00,000/- as stated in the Sale Deed. The Sub-Registrar found that the value of the Property computed on the Circle rates was in excess of the value as disclosed in the Instrument (Sale Deed) and, therefore, made a reference to the respondent under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for assessing the duty chargeable in respect of the Property.

8. Before the respondent, the petitioner submitted that he was always ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed but the same had been delayed on account of the Vendor. He submitted that the Property only consisted of terrace rights over the second floor, which was unbuilt at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell and could not be built without the