C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.08.2009
2. C.R. No.4720 of 2004 (O&M)
Jagmal Singh Thakran and another .....Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and another
....Respondents
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The orders in challenge are two consecutive orders passed
by the Collector, Gurgaon and in appeal, by the Commissioner,
Gurgaon Division. The order of the Collector purported to have been
passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant
rules framed thereunder. By the impugned orders, the stamp duty paid
on the document of sale, which was produced for registration on
06.07.2001, was found to be deficient in value and the Collector had
ordered an additional stamp duty of Rs.1,45,500/- to be paid, which
was affirmed in appeal.
2. The impugned orders make reference to the justification for
the finding that the property had been undervalued by reference to the
C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M) -2-
Rates Committee that had fixed the value of the property in South City
as Rs.6,000/- per square yard and by such a reckoning of valuation,
the payable value of the land purchased came to Rs.30,13,930/-
against the stated consideration of Rs.18,50,000/-.
3. The adjudication under Section 47-A under the Indian
Stamp Act shall be only with reference to the market value and the
value fixed by Rates Committee is invariably provisional and merely a
guideline. If ever, there is a dispute about the valuation as an
instrument valuable for duty, it shall be the duty of the Collector to
examine the market value of the property and not adopt the guideline
value itself as governing a conclusive proof of the valuation of the
property. A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court had an occasion to
consider the issue in Mulakh Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others
2001 (1) PLJ 364 that an order directing deficiency of alleged
undervaluation of an instrument could not be sustained if the
valuation as found by the Rates Committee alone as the basis for
determination of market value. The impugned orders of the Collector
as affirmed by the Commissioner are set aside and the matter remitted
to the Collector and the enquiry shall be undertaken by the Collector
giving an opportunity to the vendee to adduce evidence regarding the
market value of the property and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
4. The civil revision, under the circumstances, is allowed but
there shall be no direction as to costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 10, 2009
Pankaj*