Jagdish vs State of Haryana and Others

Permod Kohli, J.—Both parties and issues in both these petitions being common, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

The Petitioners purchased land situated in District Rohtak by two sale deeds dated 20.6.2007 and 30.5.2007 and paid the requisite stamp duty

and registration fee on the sale consideration fixed in the sale deeds. On the basis of some audit report Respondent No. 2 issued notices to the

Petitioners to deposit the deficient stamp and registration fee on the sale deeds. These notices were issued on 15.10.2008. The Petitioners were

asked to deposit the deficient amount of stamp duty and registration fee amounting to Rs. 32,560/- in respect to deed No. 3194 dated 20.6.2007

and an amount of Rs. 31,760/- in respect to deed No. 2305 dated 30.5.2007. It seems that the Petitioners did not appear before the Collector in

response to the aforesaid notices. The City Magistrate-Collector, Rohtak passed orders dated 19.9.2008 u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,

whereby the Petitioners were made liable to pay an amount of Rs. 32,560/- relating to sale deed No. 3194 and an amount of Rs. 31,760/- relating

to sale deed No. 2305 within 30 days. Petitioners preferred appeals before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The Appellate Authority

vide a common order dated 25.11.2008 dismissed these appeals. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner (Appellate

Authority) are subject-matter of challenge in the present petitions.

From the perusal of the impugned orders, it has been revealed that the Sub Registrar registered the sale deeds on the basis of the stamp duty

and registration fee paid on the amount of sale consideration fixed in the sale deeds. It appears that some objections were raised by the audit party

and on that basis the Sub Registrar referred the matter to the District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector. The Collector himself visited the spot in

presence of the Halqa Patwari and proceeded to assess the value of the land. It has been recorded in the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 that

the land is nearer to the Sheetal Nagar residential area and accordingly assessed the value of the land as residential. The assessed value being more

than the sale consideration differential/deficient stamp duty and registration fee is sought to be recovered.

Reasons recorded in the impugned orders are reiterated in the replies.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioners have placed on record the copies of khasra girdawari of village Sunari Kalan, Tehsil and District Rohtak, where the land is

situated. The land is shown to be Nehri Agricultural land and under self cultivation of the vendor. It is, accordingly, submitted on behalf of the

Petitioners that the Collector has committed glaring illegality by assessing the land as residential when the land is duly recorded as agricultural in the

revenue record up to the date of sale.

Proximity of the agricultural land with the residential area does riot change the nature of the land and thus the impugned order is totally perverse

and is liable to be set aside. The other contention of the Petitioners is that the action of the Sub Registrar and the Collector is otherwise without any

jurisdiction. Section 47-A permits the Collector to re-determine the value of the land on the reference being made by the Sub Registrar at the time

of registration of the document. Once the document is registered and delivered to the vendee, neither the Sub Registrar has any authority to make a

reference nor the Collector has any jurisdiction to re-determine the value of the land and the stamp duty/registration fee.

It is not in dispute that the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. This revenue record was part of the sale deed. The

Petitioner has paid the stamp duty on the rates determined by the Collector for such agricultural land. Merely on the basis of some audit objections

the Sub Registrar proceeded to make reference that too after 5 months of registration of document. As a matter of fact the Collector became

functus officio after registration of the document and ceases to have any jurisdiction or control over the same. The action of the Sub Registrar

proposing to make reference to the Collector is totally illegal and without any competence. The action of the Collector in taking cognizance of such

a reference is also without jurisdiction. This issue has been considered by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3530 of 1995 titled as State of Punjab v.

Beant Singh and Ors., wherein following opinion was expressed.

Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act clearly provides for reference to the Collector as soon as the Registering Officer registers the

document and is of the opinion that the value fixed for determining the stamp duty is less than the market value. The Collector on receipt of the

reference is required to determine the market value, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section

47-A of the Act. In the present case, this procedure was not adopted. The Registering Officer, after registration of the documents handed over the

same to the vendees and it is, only thereafter that he made the reference to the Collector. Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act further

empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings either on the receipt of the reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a

District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 in whose jurisdiction, the property is situated or on the receipt of the report of the audit by the

Comptroller & Auditor General of. India or by any other authority authorized by the State Govt. or suo motu, within a period of three years from

the date of registration of the instruments. In the present case, the Collector initiated the proceedings on reference being made by the Registering

Officer after he had handed over the document to the vendee. None of the situation contemplated under Sub-sections (1) or (3) of Section 47-A

has been adopted. The appellate authority has rightly allowed the appeals. I find no merit in these revision petitions which are accordingly

''dismissed.

The present controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

Apart from the above, the Collector has based his findings on spot visit. Such a recourse is also impermissible in law. Even on spot visit the

Collector has not opined that the land is non-agricultural. It is only recorded that the land is 1-2 acres away from the locality. The revenue record

clearly shows that the land is agricultural. Spot visit cannot be made the basis for determination of the value of land particularly when the land is

duly recorded as agricultural land in the undisputed revenue record.

In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders passed fey the Collector and the Appellate Authority are without jurisdiction and

void ab initio, same are hereby quashed.

Copy of this order be placed on each connected file.