Atam Parkash vs State of Haryana and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 22.03.2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 - Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar whereby appeal filed against the order dated 21.08.2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no. 3 - S.D.O. (Civil)-cum-Collector, Fatehabad assessing the value of the property at Rs. 3,50,000/-, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that a sale deed No. 3492 was registered in favour of the petitioner on 09.02.2000 for the shop measuring 28 sq. yards situated in Fatehabad for a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- in the office of Sub-Registrar, Fatehabad. Subsequent to the registration, the Sub Registrar found the document to be undervalued and referred it to the Collector u/s 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. Vide order dated 21.08.2000, the Collector, Fatehabad found that the sale deed was worth Rs. 3,50,000/- and there was a deficiency of stamp duty/registration fee to the tune of Rs. 46,500/-. Against the order dated 21.08.2000, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, which has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 22.03.2002. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities under the Act have assessed the market value on the basis of Collector''s rate. Learned counsel further contended that the Collector''s rate cannot be taken into consideration as such rates have no statutory support. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gauri Singla Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . Learned counsel further contended that the Collector has neither afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence nor to rebut the evidence of the respondents.

Learned State counsel has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Singla''s case (supra) has held as under:-

It may be noticed that the court noticed the fact that there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 under which the Collector can issue the order or the directions of the type as contained in the guidelines, nor the Registrar has the power to determine the market value of the property sold in order to assess the chargeability of the stamp duty on the same. Prior to incorporation of Section 47-A of the Act, there was no provision in the Act to call upon the Collector or the Registering Officer to make an independent inquiry about the property conveyed. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as State of Punjab and Others Vs. Mohabir Singh etc. etc., , wherein it was held as under:

It would thus be seen that the aforesaid guidelines would inhibit the Registering Authority to exercise his quasi-judicial satisfaction of the true value of the property or consideration reflected in the instrument presented before him for registration. The statutory language clearly indicates that as and when such an instrument is presented for registration, the sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself, before registering the document, whether true price is reflected in the instrument as it prevails in the locality. If he is so satisfied, he registers the document. If he is not satisfied that the market value or the consideration has been truly set forth in the instrument, subject to his making reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 47A, he registers the document. Thereafter, he should make a reference to the Collector for action under subsection (2) and (3) of Section 47A. Accordingly, we hold that the offending instructions are not consistent with sub-section (1) of Section 47A. It would, therefore, be open to the State Government to revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with law.

In Haryana, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are substantially the same as they were inserted in Punjab, vide Act No. 21 of 1982. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, are applicable with full force to the cases arising out of the registration of the instruments in Haryana as well. It may be noticed that in Punjab substantial amendments have been made in Section 47-A of the Act as also in the Rules framed thereunder.

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Gauri Singla''s case (supra). In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Case is remanded back to the Collector with a direction to pass a afresh order on the basis of afore cited case and after affording adequate opportunity to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 16.09.2013.