IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 18, 2008 Gurdial Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. The short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the petitioner is covered by notification dated 21.12.2001 (P-2) or subsequent notification dated 3.11.2006 (P-8), issued by the respondent State under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), granting exemption to specified persons from payment of stamp duty in case of transfer of immovable property has been made to another specified person. It is in this context that the petitioner has prayed for quashing demand notice of recovery dated 15.3.2005 (P-3), order dated 23.1.2006 (P-5), demand notice dated C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 5.5.2006 (P-6) and the appellate order dated 27.2.2007 (P-10). The respondents have issued demand for recovery of Rs. 1,98,000/- from the petitioner in respect of the transfer deed bearing No. 1403, dated 23.1.2003. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is a minor and great grand son of one Shri Bhag Singh. Shri Bhag Singh had a pre-deceased son, namely, Shri Baldev Singh, who died on 24.7.2002. Shri Baldev Singh also had son, namely, Kuldeep Singh, who pre-deceased him on 31.8.1999. The petitioner was born out of the lions of Shri Kuldeep Singh. Shri Bhag Singh, great grand father of the petitioner executed a transfer deed bearing No. 1403, dated 23.1.2003 (P-1), registered at Sub-Tehsil Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, in respect of agricultural land measuring 54 Kanals 7 Marlas and 6½ Biswas, situated in village Kandala Guru, District Jalandhar. The value of the land disclosed in the transfer deed is Rs. 30,00,000/-. The petitioner being the transferee did not affix any stamp duty on the ground that notification dated 21.12.2001 (P-2), stipulates grant of exemption in case transfer of immovable property is made by the great grand father to the great grand son. The aforementioned fact has been mentioned in the transfer deed. The transfer deed was registered without any demur in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. However, on 15.3.2005, the petitioner received a notice under Section 47A(3) of the Act, calling upon him to appear before the Collector- cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, to answer all the queries (P-3). On 25.5.2005, the petitioner submitted his objections 2 C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 claiming that he is Class-I heir of the transferor-executant of the deed and was covered by the notification dated 21.12.2001 (P-2). It was further claimed that no stamp duty was leviable in case transfer deed has been made in favour of Class-I heir (P-4). The Collector, Jalandhar, after considering the reply held that the petitioner was not covered in the category of Class-I heir and was liable to pay deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,98,000/-. The operative part of the order, dated 23.1.2006, passed by the Collector, Jalandhar (P-5), reads as under:- “ The reply of the Vendee was considered. Regarding this the Govt. instructions issued vide Notification dated 23.12.2001 recognize the grand son as Class-I heir. But regarding great grand son there is no instruction. In this connection this Court asked for guiding precedents, in this case, from Financial Commissioner Revenue Department (Stamp Vendor Registration Branch) Vide letter No. 1158/Reader/A.D.C. dated 23.09.2005 who have written vide their letter No. 10490 dated 20.12.2005 regarding the decision of this case that further action may be taken vide notification dated 21.12.2001 and 08.01.2004. Both the notification of Govt. were thoroughly gone into in which there is no mention of recognizing great grand son as Class-I heir. Hence, it is ordered that the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,98,000/- may be recovered from the Vendee in accordance with the price assessed by the Audit party as 3 C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 Rs. 33,00,000/- in the charge of ownership on deed No. 1403 dated 23.01.2003. The file after completion and classification consigned to records. The order pronounced.” On appeal to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the view taken by the Collector was maintained. It was, however, observed that the order dated 23.1.2006, was passed after obtaining clarification from the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and thorough examination of the facts of the case (P-10). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition. The whole controversy raised in this case emanates from notification dated 21.12.2001 (P-2). In the first paragraph of the notification, the following provision has been made:- “ In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Central Act No. 2 of 1899) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to remit, with effect from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette, the stamp duty chargeable in case of transaction of transfer by an owner of agricultural land and rural residential property to his Class-I heirs (as defined in Schedule under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) during his life time. However, where the owner of the property is unmarried and/or is issueless, this concession would also be 4 C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 available in the matter of the transfer of property in favour of his brother, sister, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son and sister’s daughter as well provided that he has no class-I heir:- Provided that this remission would be applicable to rural agricultural land and rural residential property outside the Lal-Lakir only: Provided further that the Registering Officers will also be required to ensure that the factum of relation of the transferor with the person to whom the property is transferred is fully described in the transfer deed itself so that the transferor is duly made liable for concealment of facts, if any, and the pedigree table clearly effecting class-I heirs of the owner of the property will also be got attached to the sale deed duly certified by the village Lambardar. ……” A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision made in the notification shows that no stamp duty would be chargeable in case of transaction or transfer by an owner of agricultural land and rural residential property to his Class-I heirs as defined in the Schedule under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Succession Act’). The Schedule under Section 8 of the Succession Act specifies heirs in Class-I, which includes son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son. The aforementioned Schedule reads, thus:- 5 C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 “ THE SCHEDULE (See section 8) HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II Class I Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre- deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son.” (emphasis added) It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner, who is son of pre- deceased father Shri Kuldeep Singh, who expired on 31.8.1999. The petitioner was also son of a pre-deceased grand father Shri Baldev Singh, who died on 24.7.2002. Therefore, he is covered by the phrase ‘son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son’. In other words, the transfer made in this case is by a great grand father in favour of a great grand son, which is covered by the phrase used in the Schedule of Class-I heirs. The argument raised on behalf of the respondent State that notification dated 3.11.2006 (P-8), would not apply to the facts of the present case and no benefit could be extended to the petitioner as the notification has not been given retrospective effect, has failed to impress us because the phrase ‘son of a pre-deceased son of a pre- deceased son’ is covered by the expression Class-I heirs as defined in the Schedule under Section 8 of the Succession Act. Therefore, 6 C.W.P. No. 6326 of 2007 notification dated 21.12.2001 (P-2) itself would cover the case of the petitioner and it would fully apply to the transfer deed, which was registered on 23.1.2003. The argument raised by the learned State counsel, thus, has no merit and the same is rejected. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. Notice dated 15.3.2005 (P-3), order dated 23.1.2006 (P-5), demand notice dated 5.5.2006, asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,98,000/- (P-6) and the appellate order dated 27.2.2007 (P-10) are hereby set aside. If the transfer deed of the petitioner has been impounded the same shall be released to him expeditiously but not later than one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) March 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor FIT FOR INDEXING. 7