AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Co-operativc Housing Society is the petitioner. It entered into an agreement dated 24-12-1980 with one T.P. Ratnaiah who is the original owner, to purchase an extent of 12,376 sq. yards of land in Survey No.28/3 of Trimulglieny village, Secunderabad Cantonment which is declared as the excess land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Both the petitioner and the vendor, made an application u/s 20(1)(a) of the said Act, and the Government of India, Ministry of Defence which is the appropriate authority granted exemption by its proceedings No. ULC/DLC/ SBD/ Sy.No. 28/3/84/601/3625/D (lands)/91 dated 30-12-1995, subject to the following conditions :
"(1) Area of the land sold should not. if equally divided among the members of Society, exceed 200 Sq. mis.
(2) The consideration for the sale should not exceed the amount that the owners would be entitled to receive as price of such land under para 4(2) of Schedule I. A. of the Act."
In pursuance of the said exemption, the Defence Estate Officer and the competent authority, Secunderabad Cantonment issued letter being No. ULC/SBD/GLRS No. 1/2447 76/77 dated 15-11-1996 stating as follows:
"The above referred land falls in Zone V and cost of the land cannot be charged more than Rs. 20/- per Sq. metre while transferring the land by the owner in favour of the Society or its members vide. A.P. Gazette Part-II Misc.No.50, dated 20-12-1979."
In accordance with the said letter, petitioner Society purchased the property under sale deed dated 13-12-1996 bearing No.105/ 97 of an extent of 11,300 sq.yards for a consideration of Rs. 1,88,960/- and another sale deed of the even date bearing No. 106/97 of an extent of 1,076 Sq, yards for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-. However, when the documents were presented for registration showing the market value of the site at Rs. 20/ - per sq. mtr. the Sub-Registrar, Bowenpalli refused to register the documents unless stamp duty is paid in accordance with the Basic Value Register and insisted on payment of stamp duty of Rs.16,24,760/- and Rs.5,57,201/-under two sale deeds respectively, The petitioner having no other alternative approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
The main contention of Sri. N. V. Ranganadam, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Society is that the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has fixed the market value at Rs.20A per sq. metre, and the petitioner -Society accordingly paid the same to its vendor. This fixation of price was done in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence while granting exemption u/s 20(1)(a) of the said Act, and if there is any violation of the conditions in the order of exemption, the exemption itself would cease to exist, since there is a clear embargo to sell or purchase the property at a price higher than Rs.20/- per sq. metre. To put it differently, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate is that the owner who was granted exemption by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence can only sell to the recognised Society viz. Petitioner - Society at a price not exceeding Rs.20/- per sq. metre, and if sold at a higher rate, the vendor would run the risk of resumption of land by the Government under the provisions of the said Act. As the vendor has accepted the condition, the agreed price between the willing vendor and a willing purchaser should be deemed to be Rs.20/- per sq. metre and in this view- of the matter, vendor cannot fix higher rate for the site for any purpose, including for purpose of stamp duty and registration.
The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has nothing to do with the payment of stamp on any instrument, including a sale deed. The exemption granted by the Government of India for sale of the land to the vendor, subject to certain conditions, is only for purpose of selling the property to the Society, but the said exemption from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act cannot be taken to be an exemption from payment of stamp duty under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act also. He relics on the proviso to Section 3 of the., said Act, to show that only instruments executed by or on behalf or in favour of Government arc only exempted from payment of stamp duty. 47-A of Schedule - I-A prescribes the rate of stamp admissible for sale deeds; while Section 47-A prescribes the procedure to deal with instruments of conveyance under-valued. So, in view of these provisions under the Indian Stamp Act the petitioner or as a matter of fact the Sub-Registrar cannot ignore, merely because the Government of India, Ministry of Defence has directed the vendor of the petitioner not to collect more than Rs.20/- per sq. metre.
I find force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has nothing to do with levy of stamp duty on instruments. Exemption of collection of stamp duty is provided under the Indian Stamp Act, for instance proviso to Section 3 which is already noticed. Government of India, or the State Government as the case may be in an appropriate case may direct the excess land holder while granting exemption u/s 20(1)(a) of the Act to dispose of the said excess land to a named Society at a particular rate. That condition operates as a restriction against the owner of the land from collecting any rate or price higher than the one fixed under the order of the Government. It has nothing to do with the chargeability of the stamp under the Indian Stamp Act. For various reasons a vendor may dispose of his land at a much lower rate than the prevailing market rate, may be due to distress, immediate financial necessity or an account of nonavailability of purchasers and for a variety of other reasons. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the rate as agreed to between the parties is the market rate. Even assuming that the Government of India granted exemption from payment of stamp duty over and above Rs.20/- per sq. metre, even then the said direction cannot prevail over the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a Judgment reported in Vidya Nagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A learned single Judge of this Court observed thus:
"It should be noted at the outset that when the Sub-Registrar initiated the impugned action he acted in pursuance of a power granted to him by a statute. Therefore the only question to be considered by this Court is whether the Sub-Registrar acted beyond the scope of his power granted under Subsection (1) of Section 47A of the Act. In deciding this question necessarily the Court cannot ignore the provisions of subsection (6) of the same section also. If these two sub-sections arc read together the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the Sub-Registrar has necessarily to satisfy himself before registering a document that the market value of the properly in question is truly stated in the instrument presented before him. A power statutorily granted to an authority created by it cannot be so interpreted as to dilute its intcndment, efficacy and operation. If any limitation or fetter is to be found in the statute itself or in the Constitution. Further, the Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. metre fixed by the Government was fixed statutorily. It should be noted at the outset that the ULC Act itself does not fix the rate. Assuming that in pursuance of the power granted to the appropriate Government u/s 20(1) of the ULC Act, this rate of price was fixed, then at the most it will be delegated legislation but not a parent legislation itself Therefore it is incredible to state and contend that a delegated legislation made by virtue of a power granted by the ULC Act could control and limit the power statutorily granted to the Sub-Registrar of Stamps and Registration u/s 47A of the Act."
Hence the letter of the competent authority cannot prevail.
Market value has to be arrived at keeping several circumstances in view including the Basic Value Register, and in case of dispute, procedure is prescribed u/s 47A of the Indian Stamp Act A Division Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Section 47A and Andhra Pradcsh Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 in Sub-Regislrar v. M. Damodar Reddy, 1997 (3) ALD 325, observed that when the Sub-Registrar has reason to believe that the value of the property is not correctly reflected in the instrument, he may keep pending registration of such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value and for proper stamp duty payable thereon. The Division Bench further observed as follows:
"Under Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector shall, after giving the parties adequate opportunity and after holding an enquiry, determine the market value of the property and under sub-section (4) the aggrieved party has got a right of appeal against the order of the Collector, to the Civil Court. The respondent lias thus adequate remedy to agitate before the Collector satisfying him about the true market value. He lias also a right of fiirther remedy of appeal before the Civil Court. Thus, the respondent without availing the adequate alternative remedy, has rushed to this Court. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed by the learned single Judge."
The ratio of the Division Bench alone governs the field.
It is also brought to my notice that the petitioner has already paid the requisite stamp duty under protest on 23-1-1997 and the stamp duty was collected as per the market value fixed by the Sub-Registrar; and in its turn the petitioner-Society has also presented 15 documents in favour of its members without any protest and got the said documents registered paying the requisite stamp duty on the basis of the said market value. Be that as it may. As the stamp duty is paid under protest, it cannot be said that the petitioner-Society has waived its objection for payment of stamp duty as fixed by the Sub-Registrar. However, as already seen the registering authority is not bound by the value of the property as fixed between the parties, but has to follow the procedure u/s 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in ease of dispute.
For all the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.