AFR Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6353 of 1996 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- Xi A.D.J., Meerut & Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Goyal Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.1992 (annexure
5 to the writ petition) passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge,
Meerut in Execution Case no. 6 of 1990 Sunil Kumar Vs Mukul
Kumar as also the Revisional order dated 1.11.1995 (annexure 6 to
the writ petition) passed by the court of XIth Additional District
Judge, Meerut in Civil Revision No. 266 of 1992.
Sri A.K. Goyal has submitted that the petitioner was a decree
holder in a Suit for specific performance being Suit no. 877 of
1984 and when the defendant judgment debtor failed to execute
the sale deed of the land in question the executing court executed
the sale deed on 8.5.1992 and sent the sale deed for registration
before the Sub Registrar, Meerut (respondent no. 6). The Sub
Registrar found that the sale deed was executed on stamp paper of
Rs. 22600 but in accordance with the circle rate determined by the
District Magistrate on 2.2.1992 the value of the land in question
would be Rs 1,80,000 and hence the stamp duty chargeable would
be Rs. 26,110. As such the executing court on the report of the Sub
Registrar found deficiency in the stamp duty and required the
decree holder petitioner to deposit the same before the executing
court.
Sri Goyal states that feeling aggrieved the decree holder petitioner
filed Civil Revision no. 266 of 1992 which has also been
dismissed by the Revisional Court on 1.11.1995.
According to Sri Goyal the rules framed under Section 47-A of the
Stamp Act in their application to the State of U.P. have provided a
clear procedure for determination of the value of the land in case
of dispute with respect to payment of stamp duty. He submits that
the Collector has jurisdiction either suo moto or otherwise to
satisfy himself with respect to market value of the property in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 340, Rule
340-A and Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules 1942 as were applicable
in the year 1992. He states that having not initiated the process for
valuation of the land in question for the purpose of payment of
stamp duty on the instrument the executing court has committed an
error since it ought to have directed the District Magistrate to do so
when there was a dispute.
Sri Goyal has submitted that in case of an order passed by the
Collector demanding deficient stamp duty the same would have
been appellable under the provisions of Stamp Act but when the
Civil Court in execution of a decree of specific performance has
passed the order to deposit deficit stamp duty no appeal can be
preferred by the petitioner in case he is aggrieved by the demand
of excess stamp duty. His submission therefore is that the
petitioner has been deprived of a forum of appeal against the
demand of excess stamp duty on the one hand and on the second
the demand being based on circle rate cannot be taken to be an
absolute determination of the market value of the land in question.
The aforesaid submission of Sri Goyal appears to have substance.
The revenue authority has not noticed the petitioner for deposit of
deficient stamp duty. In fact it has written to the executing court
for payment of deficient stamp duty and the executing court has
directed the petitioner to deposit the same so as to stamp the sale
deed and satisfy the decree for specific performance. Therefore the
right of appeal under the Stamp Act, if any, to the petitioner has
been taken away.
The second submission also appears to have force inasmuch as by
the impugned order passed by the executing court the valuation
has been found on the basis of the circle rate determined by the
District Magistrate on 2.2.1992. When there is a dispute regarding
such determination the Stamp Act and the Rules as they were at
that time have provided a procedure for determination of valuation
by the competent authority. As such while executing his decree of
specific performance the petitioner has also been deprived of an
opportunity of getting the valuation of the property made as on that
date for the purpose of assailing the demand of deficient stamp
duty.
For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders cannot be up held
and are liable to be set aside.
In these circumstances the impugned order dated 8.7.1992 passed
by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Meerut as also the Revisional
order dated 1.11.1995 passed by the court of XIth Additional
District Judge, Meerut shall stand set aside with a further direction
to the Trial Court to refer the matter for valuation of the land
which is subject matter of the sale deed executed by the court in
execution of a decree of specific performance in Execution Case
no. 6 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit no. 877 of 1984. Upon a
reference made to the District Magistrate concerned he will get the
valuation of the land in question on the date the sale deed was
submitted for registration in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in the U.P. Stamp Rules and thereafter determine as to
whether the petitioner decree holder was required to pay further
stamp duty on the valuation done in the sale deed executed by the
court. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall not be
deprived from availing the remedy available to him in law against
such determination of market value.
The petitioner may produce a certified copy of this order before
the Trial Court within a period of one month from today and the
Trial Court is required to proceed in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands allowed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.8.2010
Pravin