Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
ZILE SINGH – Appellant
Vs.
COMMISSIONER, HISAR DIVISION AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP No. 23687 of 2014
Decided on : 30-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.L. Barwala, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana
The legality of action initiated under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act based on a reference made by the Sub Registrar.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Residential Plot - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) - Section 47A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a residential plot and was later asked to pay additional stamp duty and registration charges due to undervaluation of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the action initiated against the petitioner based on the reference made by the Sub Registrar in terms of Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act was illegal.
Issues: Undervaluation of property, legality of action initiated by the Collector based on the reference made by the Sub Registrar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and previous court decisions to determine the legality of the action initiated against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner purchased a residential plot measuring 110 sq. feet vide Vasika No.758 dated 14.5.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 5 lac, affixing the stamp of the value of Rs. 35,000/-. After registration of the sale deed, it was handed over to the petitioner without any objection by the Sub-Registrar. However, the Sub-Registrar, Jind vide his memo No.198/RC dated 5.4.2013, sent a reference to the Collector-Cum-District Revenue Officer, Jind that the auditor has found a deficiency of Rs. 95,900/- towards Stamp Duty and Rs. 9,000/- towards registration charges in the sale deed No.758 dated 14.5.2012 because the collector rate in the area in which the land has been sold is Rs. 17,000/- per sq. yards, which has been assessed @ Rs. 4500/- per sq. yards and thus the amount of registration comes to Rs. 18,70,000/-. The prayer was made by the Sub Registrar that the amount be taken under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) [for short the Act].
2. Respondent No.2 served a notice upon the petitioner and decided that the petitioner had to pay Rs. 1,96,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- towards Registration Fee, which comes to Rs. 2,10,000/- and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards penalty. The petitioner was served with a notice for recovery of deficiency of Stamp Duty of Rs. 1,04,900/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order of the Collector, preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar, which was dismissed on 2.7.2014.
3. The respondents have filed a short reply along with reference memo dated 5.4.2013 issued by the Sub Registrar, Jind to the District Revenue Office-cum-Collector, Jind, for initiating action against the petitioner in terms of Section 47A(3) of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as soon as the sale deed is executed and handed over to the purchaser/vendees, the Sub Registrar become functus officio as he can take action either under Section 47A(1) of the Act or under Section 47A(3) of the Act, which could otherwise be initiated either on the receipt of the reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act in whose jurisdiction the property is situated or on receipt of the report of the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorised by the State Government or suo motu, within a period of three years from the date of registration. In this regard, he has relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of "Iqbal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others" 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 365, "Pankaj Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others" 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 590 and "Abhinav Kumar v. State of Haryana and others" 2001(1) LJR 817.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the action has been initiated by the Collector/Registrar on the basis of audit report, which has been sent by the Sub Registrar along with his reference made by it vide memo No.198 dated 5.4.2013.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy, Section 47A of the Act is reproduced as under: -
47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with. - (I) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering. instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of property Or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be; the proper duty payable thereon.
(2) On receipt of reference under subsection (I), 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 by rules made under this Act, determine the value o
