Aggarwal Rice Mils vs State of Punjab

Ritu Bahri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexures P-1) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Muktsar and order 26.02.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur, Division, Ferozepur, whereby recovery of Rs. 2,61,000/- along with interest of Rs. 79,226/- (total Rs. 3,40,226/-) has been ordered to be effected from the petitioner on account of deficiency in stamp duty.

Wasika No. 734 dated 19.05.2005 (Annexure P-4) qua land measuring 16 Kanals, situated at village Daane Wala, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar, was registered by the Sub Registrar, Malout, wherein the petitioner had affixed the stamp duty worth Rs. 1,89,000/-. As per the report of the audit party (Annexure P-5), sale deed No. 734 dated 19.05.2005 comprising of land measuring 16 Kanals and building etc. (Rice Sheller) was registered for a consideration of Rs. 21.00 lacs (i.e. land Rs. 10 lacs and building Rs. 11 lacs) after charging stamp duty of Rs. 1,26,000/-. The stamp duty had been calculated by taking the land to be agricultural ''Nehri Land'', whereas the said land was gair mumkin, for which, the Collector has prescribed rate of Rs. 10,000/- per marla. Therefore, the value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty worked out to Rs. 32 lacs instead of Rs. 10 lacs. There was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 2.61 lacs.

After getting the report of the audit party (Annexure P-5), the Sub Registrar vide letter dated 20.02.2007 referred the matter to the Collector, Muktsar u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Collector, after giving due notice and going through the record, accepted the report of the audit party and ordered recovery of Rs. 3,40,226/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the petitioner. On appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Collector, Muktsar had not given due notice to the petitioner and the order (Annexure P-1) was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing.

Perusal of the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) shows that initially Mr. Surinder Pal had appeared on behalf of the purchaser i.e. petitioner. Thereafter, he chose not to appear. The Collector, after going through the entire record of the case, passed the said order for recovery of the deficient stamp duty. Hence, order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) cannot be said to have been passed without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur and all the pleas taken by him had been rightly dealt with by the said Appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the argument that while passing of the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-1), he was proceeded ex-parte by the Collector.

The second ground of challenge to the impugned order is that on the basis of an audit report (Annexure P-5) itself, the Collector could not have passed the order requiring the petitioner to deposit the deficient stamp duty. The Collector rate could not be the sole criteria for assessing the value of the land in question. The Collector was bound to conduct an enquiry and thereafter, pass an appropriate order.

Even this argument is liable to be rejected, as the Collector, after getting reference from the Sub Registrar on 20.02.2007, was competent to issue notice to the petitioner u/s 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act. The notice had been rightly issued within a period of three years of registration i.e. 19.05.2005. Hence, there is no infirmity with the order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Muktsar.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, has not disputed the fact that the land measuring 16 kanals had been valued at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- treating it to be ''agricultural Nehri land'', whereas as per the Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 (annexure R-I), the said land was gair mumkin and the Collector rate for the said land was Rs. 10,000/- per Marla. The Collector rate list has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-II. Notice dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure R-III) was duly served upon the petitioner and thereafter, Mr. Surinder Pal had appeared on his behalf before the Collector on 13.11.2007. Once, notice had been served upon the petitioner and his counsel had appeared, it was his duty to lead proper evidence before the Collector with regard to fixation of the price in question, which he chose not to do. Therefore, the Collector while passing the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure P-1), had rightly assessed the value of the land by applying the Collector rate as per Annexure R-II.

Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 30.11.2007 and 26.02.2009 (Annexures P-1 and P-3) do not require any interference.

Dismissed.