Vardhman Textile Limited vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 November, 2009

Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009                               1




     In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                 Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009

                    Date of Decision: 18.11.2009



Vardhman Textile Limited
                                                            ...Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Punjab and Others
                                                         ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-company purchased 20 marlas (1 kanal) plot

bearing No. 394 situated in Scheme No. 10, Town Improvement Trust,

Urban Estate, Premgarh, from the Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur. The

consideration paid by the petitioner-company was Rs.37,500/-. Taking

this as a base value, sale deed was registered and petitioner had paid

stamp duty. Thereafter, a reference was made by the Sub Registrar that

Audit Team has raised an objection that sale deed was not registered in

consonance with circle rate and the same was undervalued, as there

was deficiency in the payment of stamp fee. In the reference made, Sub

Registrar stated that at the time of registration, Collector has drawn a

Schedule and fixed the rate and the stamp duty paid was not according

to the prevailing Collector rate. Petitioner has made a grievance before
Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009 2

the Collector and the Appellate Authority that he had affixed the stamp

duty and reflected the consideration as per the allotment price and,

therefore, the Collector rate cannot be taken into consideration. A

Division Bench of this Court, to which I was party, in Sukhjit Singh

Chandigarh and Others 2009(1) Recent Civil Reports 337 held as

under:-

“Though the sale consideration mentioned

in the letter of allotment or such like document

cannot be disputed but what would be proper stamp

duty is required to be determined in terms of Section

47-A of the Act which contemplates that it is the

market value of the property on the date of

registration of the instrument. Therefore, irrespective

of sale consideration in the letter of allotment, stamp

duty would be payable on the market value of the

property determined in terms of Rule 3-A of 1983

Rules prevalent at the time of registration of

instrument”.

Mr. Handa appearing for the petitioner has further stated that

the reference was to be made by the Sub Registrar at the time of

registration and later reference is not to be made on the basis of audit

objection. This matter was also dealt with by a Division Bench of this

Court in Sukhjit Singh Cheema’s case (supra) and held as under:-

“As per amended section 47-A(1) of the

Act, the Registering Officer can make reference to
Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009 3

the Collector for determination of the market value if

market value is less than the minimum value as

determined in accordance with the Rules made

under the Act. In exercise of such powers, the State

Government have introduced Rule 3-A in 1983

Rules under which the Collector has to determine

the collector rate in consultation with the Committee

of experts in respect of the market value of the land/

properties, located in his district, locality wise and

category wise.

We have heard counsel for the parties at

length. The judgments referred to by the learned

counsel for the petitioners are the cases which arise

before the insertion of Section 47-A(1) of the Act and

Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules. In Chamkaur Singh’s case

(supra), this Court has held that the guidelines could

neither be issued under section 47-A of the Act nor

these are in consonance with the same, rather these

just run counter to the language and intendment of

the said provisions. It was held to the following

effect:-

“…..We are, therefore, clearly of the

opinion that these so called guidelines

could neither be issued under section 47-

A of the Stamp Act nor are these in

consonance with the same, rather these
Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009 4

just run counter to the language and

intendment of the said provisions. We are

further of the opinion that no guidelines

can possibly be issued or laid down for

controlling the quasi-judicial decision of a

particular functionary or authority under a

particular statute”.

Lastly, Mr. Handa has submitted that on 28.5.2009, the

Government of Punjab had issued a notification wherein it was stated

that those properties which have been allotted by the Government

Organizations, stamp duty is payable on the price at which allotment

was made or the property was sold. This matter was considered by

learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal v. State

of Punjab and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 6344 of 2007 (O&M)

decided on 18.9.2009 and held as under:-

“Contention of counsel for the petitioner, that

amendment in the Rules is retrospective, is not

coming out from the records. A reading of the

explanation/ amendment clearly indicates that it was

added for a specific period. In the notification dated

28.5.2009, it is specifically stated that the earlier

explanation shall be deemed to have been

substituted w.e.f. 2.3.2009 and under the

explanation added by the notification, the relief was

granted only upto 2.9.2009. Intention of the rule

framing authorities is very clear that the rule was
Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009 5

extended only for a limited period. In view of facts of

this case, ratio of the judgment in the case of Zile

Singh (supra), will not be of any help to the

petitioner. No case is made out for interference.

Dismissed”.

All the pleas raised by Mr. Handa stand determined in

Sukhjit Singh Cheema’s case (supra) and M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal’s

case (supra).

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon V.N.

Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. And Others

2009(3) Recent Civil Reports 496 to contend that where a property

was sold in an auction by the Board for Industrial and Financial

Reconstruction, the stand of the State that the Collector rates shall

prevail and the actual price was not accepted. That case pertain to State

of Tamil Nadu. State of Punjab has carried an amendment to Section

47A. The wording of Section produced in the judgment rendered in V.N.

Devadoss’s case (supra) and prevailing Section in the State of Punjab

are entirely different. The amendment was made in the provision and it

was held therein that Collector rate is to prevail irrespective of the

market value. This amendment was considered in Sukhjit Singh

Cheema’s case (supra) and M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal’s case (supra).

Therefore, on the facts of the case judgment rendered in V.N.

Devadoss’s case (supra) is not attracted and petitioner cannot draw

any support from it.

Civil Writ Petition No. 17409 of 2009 6

Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the

same is dismissed.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 18, 2009
“DK”