Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 222
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
P. K. Jaiswal and Vivek Rusia, JJ.
State of M.P. and another v. M/s. Saifi Timber Mart and others
Writ Appeal No.324 of 2014 (Indore); against order dated 20.8.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.10368 of 2012; Decided on 29.4.2016.
Pushyamitra Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State; R. D. Sonwane for respondent No.1; Tousif Warsi for proposed intervener; G. M. Agrawal for LRs of respondent No.2;
Manoj Munshi for respondent/IDA.
Headnote: ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 rFkk 227 & dh O;kfIr & fy[kr dk jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, izLrqr djuk] viw.kZ nLrkost vkSj bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh vksj ls mudks ;kph dks lkSaius esa foyac ds fo"k; esa & ;s rF;ksa ds xaHkhj fookfnr iz'u gSa & rF;ksa ds ,sls fookfnr iz'u & fjV ;kfpdk esa fofuf'pr ugha fd, tk ldrs & fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 & /kkjk 47d & e-iz- LVkai ¼fy[krksa dk U;wu ewY;kadu fuokj.k½ fu;e] 1975 & fu-3[k ¼la'kksf/kr½ & ifji= fnukad 12-5-2006 & bl micaèk ds v/khu Qk;nk &ifji= }kjk LVkai 'kqYd dh NwV ds Qk;nk ds fy, & 1-6-2006 rd dh rkjh[k fu;r dh xbZ & fy[kr jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, fu;r fnukad ds i'pkr izLrqr dh xbZ & ;kph dks NwV dk Qk;nk iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fy[kr jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, izLrqr djus esa & ;k rks ;kph ;k bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh vksj ls foyac & jftLVªhdj.k izkf/kdkjh dk foyac ls laca/k ugha & jkT; LVkai 'kqYd izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA ¼2009½7 ,l lh lh 438 rFkk ¼2009½14 ,l lh lh 716 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12
(1) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- scope of -- about presentation of instrument for registration, incomplete documents and delay on part of IDA to hand over them to petitioner -- these are serious disputed questions of facts -- such disputed questions of facts -- cannot be decided in writ petition -- order passed in writ petition set aside.
[Para 12
(2) Stamp Act, 1899 -- S.47A -- M.P. Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 -- R.3B (Amended) -- Circular dated 12.5.2006 -- benefit under -- when not available -- by circular for benefit of relaxation of stamp duty -- date fixed upto dated 1.6.2006 -- instrument presented for registration after cut of date -- benefit of relaxation cannot be granted to petitioner -- in presenting instrument for registration -- delay either on part of petitioner or IDA -- registering authority is not concerned with delay -- State is entitled to get stamp duty. (2009)7 SCC 438 and (2009)14 SCC 716 referred to. [Para 12
Rusia, J. -- 1. State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the present writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.10368/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 M/s. Saifi Timber Mart challenging the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Collector, Stamps; order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Indore and order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the writ petition was allowed and the aforesaid orders were quashed with the direction to the respondents to get the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner as per Circular dated 12.5.2006.
2. That respondent No.1/petitioner was allotted Plot No.T.S-5 situated in Scheme No.31, Indore by the then Town Improvement Trust which was later on merged in to the Indore Development Authority for a consideration of Rs.29,265/-. At that time petitioner did not apply for registration but constructed the house over the plot. On 12.5.2006 a Circular was issued by the Registrar, Stamps Indore to the effect that the plots for which no sale deed has been executed by the individuals they can apply for registration on or before 1.6.2006 and they are only required to pay the stamp duty and registration fee on the basis of the rate on which the allotment was made. Similar type of advertisement was also issued by the IDA on 16.5.2006 for execution of registered deed on the basis of allotment which took place on 12.2.1975.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that in pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement he submitted an application on 16.5.2006 enclosing various documents which was duly received by the IDA. However, the IDA has remanded back the documents to the petitioner with a direction to resubmit the same along with site plan. That on 19.2.2007 IDA handed over the documents to the petitioner for presentation before the Deputy Registrar. That after completing the formalities, deeds were submitted before the registering authority on 22.2.2007 and on the same day Sub-Registrar has forwarded it to the Registrar for determination of market value under section 47A of the Stamp Act. That the Collector, Stamps registered a Case No.105/06-07/47-a(1) and proposed the market value of the plot at Rs.1,66,61,000/-. The petitioner appeared before the Collector of Stamps and contested the matter on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the IDA, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of the Circular dated 1.6.2006. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner was rejected and vide order dated 31.8.2007 Collector, Stamps assessed the market value of the property at Rs.1,49,45,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.14,91,600/- within a period of thirty days.
4. The aforesaid order of the Registrar dated 31.8.2007 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner by way appeal under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Vide order dated 30.9.2009, Commissioner, Indore has dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Collector of Stamps. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. Vide order dated 20.9.2012, the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Commissioner dated 30.9.2009.
5. That respondent No.1/petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.10368/2012 against the order of the Collector of Stamps, Commissioner and Board of Revenue. In para-6.2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that the disputed plot was allotted to him on 12.2.1975. It is also admitted that the registration of the instrument could not be executed for some reasons. In para-6.3 petitioner further stated that he applied for registration of the instrument with IDA on 16.5.2006 but the IDA has not given copy of the proposed instrument to the petitioner before 1.6.2006 and the same was delivered to him on 19.2.2007. Thereafter, he immediately submitted the instrument for registration on 22.2.2007, hen
