IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16413 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2011
Naveen Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Chander, and another ...Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Haryana
Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. In a suo motu enquiry undertaken by the Collector under
Section 47-A of the Registration Act, the Collector demanded additional
stamps as payable by taking the value of the property as per Collector’s
rates on the date of registration and refusing to allow the date of
execution of the agreement of sale as the relevant date for determining
the value of the property. The Collector, while rejecting the plea of the
petitioner that the value of the property was what was stated in the Sale
Deed which was in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, relied
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan
and others Versus M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers-2008(1) Civil Court
Cases 259 to hold that the valuation shall be taken only as on date of
registration.
Civil Writ Petition No.16413 of 2011(O&M) -2-
2. The learned counsel argues that this Court has consistently
taken a view that whenever a decree is obtained for specific performance
for sale of an immovable property, the value of the property as stated in
the decree alone shall be treated as relevant and the Collector’s valuation
as on date of registration is not relevant. He would also contend that the
market value itself will be calculated only on the basis of what is struck
as a bargain between parties and the Collector’s circle rate cannot afford
such a basis.
3. The counsel relies on the decision reported in Manoj
Kumar Versus State of Haryna and others-2008(2) Haryana Rent
Reporter 46, where the Division Bench has held that a price given in the
Transfer Deed in a decree for specific performance ought to be accepted
by the Registering Authority without doubting the authenticity of sale
consideration, because the authenticity of a decree passed by a Court
itself cannot be questioned. The reference to this judgment is
inappropriate, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressly set aside
the judgment and has held it to not lay down the correct law in State of
Haryana and others Versus Manoj Kumar-(2010) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 350. This judgment emphatically lays down the effect of
valuation as given in decree for specific performance cannot overrule the
valuation as given in the circle rates.
4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan
case v M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers (supra), referred in the order of the
Collector above has laid down two important propositions: (i) the date
which is relevant for determining the market value of the property is the
Civil Writ Petition No.16413 of 2011(O&M) -3-
date of registration and (ii) it is irrelevant that the by the long pendency
of litigation, there is a long time gap between the consideration as stated
in the agreement and the value as appreciated at the time of conclusion of
court proceedings when the document is brought for registration. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court was accepting the plea of the State that whatever
may be the consideration for the vendor or the vendee, the State is
entitled to collect its revenue on the basis of market rate at the time of
registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. The arguments
which weighed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reflected in para 7 of
the judgment. While expanding on the reasoning given for holding that
the time of registration alone is relevant, the Court culled out the entire
Section 47-A and held as follows:-
“The contention of the learned counsel for the State
that as per Section 17 of the Act, the market value has to be
taken into consideration because Section 17 stipulates that
all the instruments chargeable with duty and executed by
person of India shall be stamped before or “at the time of
execution”. The word “execution” has been defined in
Section 2(12) of the Act which says that “Execution” used
with reference to the instruments, mean “signed” and
“signature”. Therefore, it shows that the document which is
sought to be registered has to be signed by both the parties.
Till that time the document does not become an instrument
for registration. A reading of Section 2(12) with Section 17
clearly contemplates that the document should be complete
in all respects when both the parties should have signed it
with regard to the transfer of the immovable property. It is
irrelevant whether the matter had gone in for litigation.”
Civil Writ Petition No.16413 of 2011(O&M) -4-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further reaffirmed the reasons as to how the
date of registration alone is necessary when it said,
“……… The crucial expression used in Section 17 is “at the
time of execution”. Therefore, the market value of the
instrument has to be seen at the time of the execution of the
sale deed, and not at the time when agreement to sale was
entered into. ………………………………..
In this background, if we construe Section 17 read
with Section 2(12) then there is no manner of doubt that at
the time of registration, the Registering Authority is under
an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that
time, and should not go by the value mentioned in the
instrument.”
5. Both as regards the primacy of consideration of the
Collector’s circle rate and the date of registration for determination of the
valuation of the property, over the valuation as stated in the Civil Court
decree, the Supreme Courts views referred to in the two decisions
conclude the issues and all the decisions of this Court both of Single
Bench and Division Benches that hold otherwise are not any longer good
law. I find no error in the order passed by the Collector. The writ petition
is, consequently, dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
08.09.2011
sanjeev