Allahabad High Court
Shail Kumar Jain vs Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 12 August, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18842 of 1997
Petitioner :- Shail Kumar Jain
Respondent :- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Alld. And Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- H.S. Nigam,S.S.Nigam
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
A supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
A deficiency of Rs. 1,33,470/- was found and an additional stamp duty on the petitioner in respect of the purchase of the property in question and a fine of Rs. 16,500/- was also imposed. The challenge in this petition is to the said imposition and the dismissal of the revision against the said order.
The petition was entertained and an interim order was granted. However, in spite of that the petitioner contends that he has been compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- during the pendency of the writ petition in the year 2003 itself.
Sri Nigam submits that the stamp duty leviable was only 800 times as provided under Section 141 (a) of the Stamp Act and Rules framed thereunder and as such if calculated on the said strength, the petitioner has already deposited excess of stamp duty and hence the impugned orders are vitiated as they do not take notice of the aforesaid provisions of law. He further submits that the petitioner had filed the "Kisan Bahi "of the land in question to indicate the amount of land revenue payable yet, the authorities below have imposed the additional stamp duty which is erroneous in law.
The Collector has proceeded to impose the additional stamp duty on the ground that from a perusal of the instrument, it appears that the land in question is irrigated land and has been described as "Jungle Doyam", the circle rate whereof was described as Rs. 48,000/-per Bigha. The extent of the land which has been purchased and which is in the shape of a grove is 21 Bighas 7 Biswas. Accordingly, the Collector proceeded to assess the value of the land by the aforesaid rate and has imposed the additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,33,470/-.
From a perusal of the orders impugned, it appears that the circle rate prescribed has been taken into account. Sri Nigam submits that this being in excess of the provisions as referred to hereinabove, the impugned orders are vitiated.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act provides as under:-
"47-A.-Instruments of Conveyance etc., it under-valued, how to be dealt with.-
(1) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, as set forth in such instrument is less than that determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if such registering officer while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust has not been truly set forth in the instrument , he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
(3) On receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
(4) The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from the Chief Inspector of Stamps, Uttar Pradesh, within two years from the date of registration any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust not already referred to him under Sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (3). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty."
The Act clearly provides that in case valuation described in an instrument is less than the minimum value determined in accordance with the Rules under the provisions of the Act then the Collector can proceed to realize the additional stamp duty. The circle rates which are prescribed are determined under the aforesaid Rules framed under the Stamp Act. When the Collector determines the circle rate then circulars are issued to sub-registrar for the purpose of imposition and realization of appropriate stamp duty.
In the instant case, there was no challenge to the fixing of such circle rate by the Collector. Even before this Court, allegations have been made that the Collector has not fixed any proper stamp duty. In the absence of any appropriate challenge to the fixing of the circle rate and keeping in view Section 47-A, it cannot be said that the Collector has committed any error of law in taking into account the minimum rates fixed under the Rules. In view of this, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The amount already deposited by the petitioner and as disclosed in the Supplementary affidavit may be verified and the balance amount shall be appropriately realized from the petitioner after adjusting the same.
Order Date :- 12.8.2011
Shiraz
