IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB

AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 17131 of 2009. [O&M]

Date of Decision: 15^th March, 2011.

Balwinder Singh

Petitioner through

Mr. P.C.Rakra, Advocate

Versus

Financial Commissioner [Revenue], Punjab & Ors.

Respondents through

Ms. Monica Chhibbar, DAG, Punjab.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

The petitioner is a poor farmer who took a loan of ` 4 lacs

from the State Bank of Patiala, Dasuya Branch under the Kisan Gold

Scheme – Agricultural Finance for the purchase of agricultural

implements. The petitioner also executed a Mortgage Deed dated

05.08.2004 hypothecating his agricultural land measuring 20 kanals

in favour of the Bank to secure the afore-stated loan.

The Collector, Hoshiarpur vide his impugned order dated

11.01.2007 [Annexure P-7] directed the petitioner to affix the stamp

duty and registration charges on the said mortgage deed. It appears

that the petitioner instead of filing an appeal before the

Commissioner of the Division, filed an appeal before the Financial

Commissioner, Punjab who rejected the same in a totally mechanical

manner.

The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to

whether the petitioner is exempted from affixation of the stamp duty

and registration charges on the aforesaid mortgage deed in terms of

the Punjab Government notification dated 21.06.2001 [Annexure P-

2]?

The Government notification has been issued in

purported exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 78 and 79 of

the Registration Act, 1908 and its operative part reads as under:-

“Provided further no registration fee shall be chargeable

on any deed of mortgage without possession, for

securing loan from any commercial or banking institution

to meet the expenditure for any of the following purposes,

namely:-

“purchase of inputs [crop loans] like fertilizers,

insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and seeds”, the

following provisions shall be substituted, namely:-

“Provided further that no registration fee shall be

chargeable on any instrument executed by any

person for securing loan from a bank [Nationalist

Bank, Cooperative Bank or Private Bank],

Cooperative Society or Banking Institution to meet

the expenditure for any agricultural purposes or

purposes

allied to it including machinery and

building which is not used for commercial purposes,

namely:-

1. to 35 xx

xx” [Emphasis applied].

It would, thus, be seen that no registration fee is leviable

on any deed of mortgage executed for securing loan from any

financial institution to meet the expenditure for various purposes,

namely, from Sr. No.[1] to [35] which enlist the purchase of

agricultural equipments, like tractor, trolley, thrasher etc. The

petitioner admittedly took the loan for the purchase of 'agricultural

implements' which are listed at Sr. No. 7 of the aforementioned

Government notification. Since the petitioner took loan from a

nationalized bank and executed the mortgage deed to secure the

loan taken for 'agricultural implements', he is undoubtedly entitled to

the benefit of the Punjab Government notification dated 21.06.2001.

The Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner failed to

exercise their jurisdiction while holding that the Gold Card Scheme of

the State Bank of Patiala is not meant for the enlisted items and that

the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the same. It was not the

'scheme' rather the 'purpose' of loan taken by a farmer which was

relevant and the same being referable to the afore-stated notification,

no liability could be fastened upon the petitioner.

For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is

allowed, the impugned