IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009
Date of Decision: 14.07.2009
Parma Rani and others
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioners
.....
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash orders
dated 12.12.2007 (P1) and 9.1.2008 (P2), vide which, the Collector directed
the petitioners to make payment towards deficient Stamp fee affixed by
them on sale deed, vide which, they had purchased 12 bighas and 16 biswas
of land. Further challenge is to order dismissing their appeal on 10.2.2009
(P3).
Heard counsel for the petitioners.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners purchased property,
mentioned above, for an amount of Rs.17 lacs 25 thousands showing it as
agricultural land. The sale deed was impounded as per provisions of Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The matter was sent to the Collector,
for enquiry, to decide, as to whether deficient Stamp fee has been affixed or
not. Upon notice, the petitioners put in appearance. Except filing written
statement, no further evidence was led by them.
Provisions of Section 47-A of the Act reads thus:-
Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 2
“47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with – (1) If
the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act,
1908, while registering any instrument transferring any
property has reason to believe that the value of the 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 the Collector for determination of
the value or consideration as the case may be, and the
property duty payable thereon.
(2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), 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 or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the
deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the reason
liable to pay the duty.”
It is contention of the petitioners that before determining price
of the land purchased, no enquiry was conducted by the Collector. This
Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. Under the Act,
Rules known as Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules, 1978 were framed. Rule 4 reads as under:-
“Rule 4. Assessment of Duty.- (1) On receipt of reference
under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, the Collector shall serve
on the person or persons concerned a notice in form I,
requiring him on a date and at a place to be specified therein
either to attend in person or through an authorized agent to
Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 3produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which
such person or persons may reply in his support.
(2) The Collector, after taking such evidence as the person or
persons may produce and after making such enquiry as he may
deem proper, shall determine the value of property or
consideration as the case may be, and assess the amount of
deficient duty recoverable from the person concerned.
(3) If the person or persons fails or fail to attend in response to
the notice served under sub-rule (1), the Collector shall
proceed ex parte and assess the deficient amount of duty, if
any, to the best of his judgment.”
Reading of the above said provision indicates that a person
concerned (purchaser), is entitled to get a notice from the Collector, stating
date of appearance and asking him to produce any evidence on record to
rebut averments made against him in that notice. Rule further mandates that
the Collector after taking note of such evidence, as may be produced by the
person concerned and after making enquiry, shall determine value of the
property and assess amount of deficient stamp duty, if any.
It is not in dispute that vide notice, the petitioners were directed
to put in appearance and produce evidence in their favour. After putting in
appearance, the petitioners failed to appear on two dates and were ordered
to be proceeded ex-parte. Even in this writ petition, nothing has been
brought on record, in the shape of khasra girdawari/ jamabandi to show that
the land was ever used for agricultural purpose. It has been found, as a
matter of fact and not even disputed by the petitioners that on one portion of
the land, Rice Sheller is in existence. By referring to that fact, counsel
states that rest of the land cannot be treated as commercial in nature. This
Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 4
Court feels that the argument raised is not justified. To run a Sheller, huge
vacant area is needed to store paddy, without which, it is not possible to
operate a Sheller. In view of that, entire land was rightly treated as
commercial in nature.
As per facts of this case, no case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
14.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge