Late Sh. Ved Prakash Vijh Through His LR & Anr. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

By way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, an order dated 09.04.2019 (Annexure P-26), is put to challenge, vide which, the Commissioner, Jalandhar, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner(s).

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s), while assailing the abovesaid order, contended that it is the thumb rule that stamp duty is assessed on the basis of the prevailing market rate as on the date of execution of the agreement to sell, and not at the time of registration of the sale deed. To buttress the contention,, he relied upon a decision dated 07.05.2019, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-10268-2017 (Subhash Chander Abrol Vs. State of Punjab and Others).

The second limb of submissions is based on a distinction between a multiplex and a multistoried building. It was argued that the shops in question are situated in a multistoried building, but the Sub-Registrar, in its report, erroneously calculated the stamp duty considering the same to be a part of multiplex. While referring to the “Industrial Policy-2003”, issued on 08.09.2003 (Annexure P-14), by the Government of Punjab, Department of Industries & Commerce, with a view to facilitate the development of Industry in the State, he asserted that the expression “multiplex complex” denotes an integrated entertainment and shopping centre/complex having, at least, three cinema halls with aggregate seating capacity of 1,000 persons, spanning over an area of 4000 square yards of above, with minimum investment of Rs.20 crores, including the cost of land. However, the word has neither been explained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the Act of 1899’) nor in the relevant rules made thereunder. Therefore, the definition of ‘multiplex’, as embodied in the Industrial Policy (supra), would be of much significance for the purpose of assessment of stamp duty as regards the property in question. Not only that, he further invited attention of the Court to the meaning of ‘multiplex’, as described in different dictionaries, in support of his contention, i.e. (of a cinema) having several separate screens within one building.

With reference to the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-Valued Instruments) (2^nd Amendment), Rules, 2011, notified on 11.03.2011 (Annexure P-5), vide which, Rule 3-A, for clause (c) was substituted, he asserted that the rationale for assessment of stamp duty, as regards buildings, has been prescribed thereunder. However, both, the Collector as well as the Commissioner (Appellate Authority), while overlooking the afore-stated amendment to the Principal Rules, i.e. the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under Valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 (for short’ “Rules of 1983’), illegally fastened the petitioner(s) with a liability to affix exorbitant stamp duty, whereas, the stamp duty payable, in terms of the amended Rules, was substantially lower.

Per contra, learned State counsel argued that it is a well established law that the minimum market value is assessed on the date of registration of the sale deed, and not on the date of execution of agreement to sell between the parties. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3-A of the Rules of 1983, had already fixed the minimum market value of land/properties, located in the district, locality wise and category--wise, for the year 2012-13, vide order dated 09.04.2012, and conveyed the same to all concerned, including Sub-Registrars/Joint Sub-Registrars. According to which, the rates of property, situated on 3^rd floor and above in the area concerned, were fixed at Rs.7800/- per square feet against Segment Code 02/0069. Thus, the Collector committed no error in concluding that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner(s) was, indeed, considerably deficient. Likewise, the Commissioner, in due compliance with the apt rules, rendered the impugned order, which suffers from no procedural infirmity. So much so, even learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) could not point out any perversity in the impugned order, which deserves to be upheld.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

As a sequel of the foregoing narration, the predominant issue that arises for consideration of this Court is, whether the stamp duty is liable to be assessed on the market value prevailing on the date of registration of the sale deed or on the date of execution of the agreement to sell?

Before delving into the merits and dealing with rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be expedient to recapitulate the factual background of the matter.

The petitioner, and his late father (Sh. Ved Parkash Vijh), presented a sale deed as regards office No.401 to 406, measuring 3556 square feet (commercial), on the fourth floor, front side of Grand Mall Complex, situated in the Abadi, near G.T. Road, near B.M.C. Chowk, Jalandhar, having value of Rs.20 lakhs. The instrument was registered on 01.03.2013, which was impounded by the Sub-Registrar, and referred to the Collector for initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899, (as applicable to the State of Punjab), as he was of the opinion that there was a deficiency of Rs.22,38,950/- with respect to stamp duty, as well registration charges. Accordingly, the Collector, upon consideration of the matter and hearing the parties, concluded that as regards the area, where the property in question is situated, stamp duty @ Rs.7800/- per square feet, was required to be affixed. In such circumstances, the Collector, vide order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-8), assessed the deficiency of Rs.30,44,972/-, including interest amounting to Rs.8,06,022/-. Fetching grievance therefrom, the petitioner(s) preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, but to no relief, as the same was dismissed, vide order dated 12.11.2016 (Annexure P-11).

Aggrieved by both the abovesaid orders, the petitioner(s), approached this Court by preferring a writ petition (CWP-6868-2018). Upon analysis of the matter in issue, a Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that the order rendered by the Appellate Authority was a cryptic and non speaking order. Accordingly, the lis was remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh, after dealing with the issues raised in the petition, vide order dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P-24). However, the legality of the order passed by the Collector was not adjudicated. In compliance thereto, the Commissioner, after hearing the parties, passed a speaking order, which, as indicated above, is a subject matter of judicial scrutiny.

This Court shall now proceed to deal with the primary argument, as to whether, the stamp duty is required to be assessed on the market value prevailing on the date of execution of agreement to sell or when the sale deed was registered. In the instant case, the agreement to sell was executed as back as in the year 2001, whereas, the sale deed was registereded after more than a decade, i.e. 2013. Further, in fact, the issue under deliberation is no more res integra, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a series of pronouncements, has elucidated the proposition that stamp duty is to be assessed, as per the rates prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed. To conclude the issue against the petitioner(s), this Court draws support from the celebrated decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. M/s Khandaka Jain Jeweleers, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 91, and Shanti Bhushan (dead) through LRs Vs. State of U.P., and others, 2023 INSC 425, and a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Uggar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 (4) RCR (Civil) 358.

Adverting to the decision in Subhash Chander Abrol (supra), the learned Single Judge had categorically held that there is no quarrel with the proposition that the stamp duty on sale of immovable property, under normal circumstances, is required to be assessed on the market value at the time of registration of the sale. However, what impelled the Court to carve out an exception to the settled legal position was the peculiar factual matrix of the case, inasmuch as the rights of the parties had crystallized on the execution of the agreement to sell itself, the entire sale consideration having been paid and possession having also been delivered:-

Ex facie, no such exceptional or peculiar circumstance exists in the instant case. The sale deed (Annexure P-6), clearly indicates that neither the entire sale consideration was remitted to the vendee at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, nor the possession was handed over. Further, it is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge-made law thereto. Sometimes, difference of even one circumstance or additional fact can make a world of difference. As a consequence, the ratio laid down in the case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as such the reliance thereupon is totally misplaced. In this way, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner(s) is rejected.

Before adverting to the next submission, it is necessary to deal with the relevant provisions of the Principal Rules of 1983.

To begin with, Rule 2 [(f)], postulates the definition of commercial premises:-

Rule 3 deals with the description of land/property, which has been mandated to be included in the instruments:-

Likewise, Rule 3-A explains the procedure to be adopted for fixation of minimum value of land/property. It imposes an obligation upon the Collector to fix minimum market value of land/property, in consultation with various stakeholders mentioned therein, located in respective districts, locality-wise and category-wise, and convey the same to the Registering Officer(s) for levying of stamp duty on instruments of transfer of any property.

As already referred to above, the Rule was amended vide notification dated 11.03.2011, thereby substituting clause (c) to the effect:-

At this juncture, what cannot be afforded to be skipped, even at the cost of repetition, is that Rule 3-A mandates the District Collector to fix minimum market value of the land/property located in his district, locality-wise and category-wise, and the value so fixed, shall be considered as per the prevalent market price, and the Note (supra) further makes it abundantly clear that list of the factors elaborated therein are not exhaustive but only indicative. Therefore, the amendment, which was carved out in Rule 3-A in the year 2011, as stressed upon by learned Senior counsel, would not come to the rescue of the petitioner(s).

In the instant case, the Collector, while exercising powers conferred by Rule 3-A, had already notified minimum market value of the land/property in the district concerned, both, locality-wise and category-wise, vide order dated 09.04.2012 for the year 2012-2013, and also conveyed to all concerned, including Sub-Registrars/Joint Sub-Registrars.

When the matter was argued on 17.07.2026, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s), in relation to the abovesaid aspect, sought to raise a plea that it is not clear, as to whether, Collector rates notified on 09.04.2012, are applicable to the site in question.

Therefore, this Court, in order to have clarity on the aspect, had directed the District Collector concerned to file his personal affidavit. In compliance, the necessary affidavit was filed, and the same taken on record, vide order dated 28.07.2026.

Upon a perusal of the affidavit, it can be effortlessly comprehended that indisputably, the property in question falls in the segment code of ‘2/69’, as was also applicable to the commercial properties at the relevant time. Further, as demonstrated above, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, vide order dated 09.04.2012, had fixed the minimum market value of the land/property, strictly in terms of Rule 3-A. And, as per the Collector’s rate list, the commercial rates of the properties falling within the areas of Police line Road Shashtri Chowk to Thana Sadar, Jalandhar, and situated on 3^rd floor and above, where the property of the petitioner(s) is also located, were fixed at Rs.7800/- per square feet against segment code 02/0069.

Albeit, a bare glance at the abovesaid averments is sufficient to dispel any ambiguity, yet, the relevant averments set out in the affidavit are extracted hereinbelow:-

It is recited in the sale deed that the shops/property in question is situated on the fourth floor, and the segment Code is 2/69, thereby leaving no room for doubt about the applicability of the rates in sync with the above mentioned Collector’s Rate List.

As far as the last submission is concerned, it seems that the petitioner is attempting to weave a web of confusion by harping on the plea of multiplex and multistoried building. In fact, the issue sought to be raised has no nexus, whatsoever, with the facts of the matter at hand. Suffice it to observe; the stamp duty was not assessed considering the property in question to be a part of either a multiplex or a multistoried building, but was rationalized, in terms of the rate list issued by the Collector. Therefore, the usage of expressions, ‘multiplex’ and multi-storey, by the Sub-Registrar, in his report, pales into insignificance, and would not advance the cause of the petitioner(s), in any manner.

In conspectus of the position sketched out above, this Court has no reservation to answer the issue posed above against the petitioner(s), by holding that the amount of stamp duty is required to be determined as per the market rate prevailing at the time of execution of sale deed and not when the parties entered into agreement to sell.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.