eeeeeeeeen 32 A 0 eCWP No921 of2010 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No921 of 2010 Date of Decisionl 42011 1 Parbhu Ram Petitioner 0 Vs Ceo Stateof Haryana8 Ors espondents I t5 I I4 Z CORAM Honble Mr Justice Permod Kohli t Present MrGodara Advocate I for the petitioner L Z MIROharma DAG Haryana 0 m Permod Kohli J Z Brieffacts Ieadingto the filingof the presentpetition are tl introducedhereinebelowl The petitionerentered into an agreementto sell with one Ranbir Singhson of Sahi Ram for the purchaseof Iand 6 Kanals 19 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs80001 on e 01994 In accordance with the sale deed r was to be executed on 222 1995 It is allegedthat the vendor became dishonest and refused to execute the sale deed in Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33 P 1 6 CWP No921 of 2010 2 tP 0 accordance withthe agreement After servinga Iegalnotice filed a civil suitfor specific of the agreementin the court of CivilJudgeat Fatehabad Suit was decreed on 229 1998 in favour of the Decree was put to execution Execution continued and finallyunder the orders of the Executing Court Local Commission was for of 1 C2 the sale deedA sale deed was finallyexecuted on 082008 with 0 0 the concernecl At the time of execution of the sale I deed stampduty was paid on the value as stipulatedin the C5 I to sell and in the decree passedbythe court of the document made a reference to Z Authorityon No 1 the Collector Fatehabad sayingthat deficient tr stampduty has been paidon the documer lt was recommended I L that the is Iiable to pay the stampdutyat Collector rate Z on the date of the of the document CO The petitioner was summoned byrespondent Nol and nmvo to the respondentNol vide Z after affording order dated101 02008 directed the petitionerto pay deficient stamp duty as per Collector rate prevalent on 5 082008 of the order of Collector petitioner preferred an before respondent No2 This appealstands dismissedvide orderdated 21 12009 This petitionhas been filed challenging orders by the Collector Annexure P21 dated 082008 and that ofthe AppellateAuthority4nnexure F3 1dated 2104009 The contention raised on behalf of the petitioneris that Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 34 1 b CWP No3921 of 2010 3 1 0 thevalue of the Iand is to be fixed in accordance with the agreement enteredinto between the in the year 1994 Accordingto the petitioner in execution and of the sale deed was his control and because of the time consumed in the sale deed couldonly be executed on 52008 and thus the Collector is not in askingthe petitioner to pay the stampduty 1 L theCollector rate fixed bythe Collector on the date of on 0 0 ofthe document in the year 2008 to the writ petitionhas been filed by the Sut 45 Fatehabad justifying the action It is stated that the value Iandis to be assessed on Collector rate on the date of Z of the of documents for the purposeof paymentof the stamp c and not the value which mighthave been mentionedin the I l3 to sell or thedecree of the civil court Accordinglyit is Z that there was deficient stampdutyof Rs0491 1mwhich the f10 is iiable to pay on the instrument of sale executed on vm has relied upon a judgmentof Apex court Z 52000 The tl reportedas Mls WeHarAssociation Noida Vs State of P 80rs 2009 131RCR lCivill 87 Honble SupremeCourt was the of payment of stampdutyon the instrument Iease hold rightsThoughvanous issueswere involved Ca however the relevant for decision of presentwrit petition has been by the Honble SupremeCouIt in para No41 of which reads as under 41 Whether the relevant date for determiningthe Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 35 il 0 CWP No921 of 2010 4 1 entered in the document would be the marketvalue of the property on the dayof enteringinto the for sale andnot the date of of thedocumentsfor This has been answered by the Apex Court in paraNo7 of the judgmentObservation of the Honble SUPreme 0 0 Courtare noticed hereinoelowl 27 Havingdecided the aforesaid questionsraised in t5 I this case wenow to deal with the question as to thedate of determinationof the consideration mentioned Z 2 in the The contendedthat the Q mentioned should be the market value of I r the on the date of execution of the deed and not Z on the datewhen the agreement to seil the Iand was QO executerl The on the contraryarguedthat the m date in order to calculate the considerationwould Z Cl be the market value on the date when the agreement to transfer the Iand was entered and registeredWe have heard the of the partiesand referred to various with this matter In this regardwe would cases eee Iike to observethat there cannot be a advised for determiningthe same It would dependon the various facts and circumstances of a particularcaseIn situationswhere the delayis caused on Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36 1 r CWP No921 of 2010 5 1 0 the part of a party while executing a deed after enteringinto an of saie or Iease as the case maybe the marketvaiue shouid be determined on the date when the deed is executed and not when an to sale the property or Iease the propertyhad m been registeredBut in cases where a person is not at CC fault and the delayis caused due to the Iessor as in this 0 0 case the market value should be determinedon the date I when the to Iease the propertywas entered l5 I TheIessee or the sub Iessee should not suffer due to the Z inabilityof the Iessor in handing over transfer Il memorandumsas is required under the Iease 0 I In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgmentnormally Z thestamp dutyis payable on the value of the property on the date of m of the document However as the delayhas been wm Z causedbythe Iessor or vendor and the person e the purchaser IS tl notat fault In such a case marketvalue should be determinedon the datewhen the to Iease the propertywas entered To the a different view has been expressedby Honble Court in an earlier judgmentof the Honble C SupremeCourt repoItedas State of Raiasthan 8 Ors Vs Mls KhandakaJain Jewellers AlR 2008 SC 509 While considerin the various provisions of the StampAct includingSections 17 121and 3 Honble SupremeCourt held as unde Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37 1 CWP No921 of 2010 6 0 Il 14 Learned Counsel for the urgedbefore us that in fact when the agreement to sell was not executedbythe vendor the had no optionbut to file a suit and a Iongtime was taken for a decree for execution of the agreementHe wasnot at fault and as such the valuation givenin the 1 instrumentshould be taken into consideration because 0 during the the valuation of the property has shot 0 I up In this connection Iearned counsel has invited our C5 I attentionto the Actus curie neminem gravabit therebythat no person shall suffer on account Z of Hence Iearnedcounsel submittedthat since the matter had been in the for a Iongtime the I cannot be made to suHer He invited our Z to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High m Court Kodad Town and Mandal lpral w It is true that no one should suffer on account of the Z tl of the matter but this consideration does not aHectthe of of a taxingstatute A taxingstatute has to be construed as it is all these that the matter was under and the value of the propeItybythat time shot up cannot be takeninto account for interpreting the provisions of a taxingstatute As alreadymentioned above a taxing statute hasto be construed strictlyand if it is construed Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 38 1lr CWP No921 of 2010 7 1 0 then the pleathat the incumbent took a Iongtime to geta decree for execution againstthe vendor that consideration cannot weigh with the Court for the provisionsof the taxing statutes Thereforesimplybecause the matter have been in the for a Iongtime that cannot be a consideration 1 r to acceptthe market value of the instrumentwhen the 0 to sale was entered As per Section 17 it 0 I says at the time when is made the C5 valuationis to be seen on that basis Il I Z In this Honble Supreme Court has held that value of the propeityIS to be seen on the date of I of the document and at no other pointof time Similar Z view has been bythis court in the case of CO Howeverwhen this judgment was judgment W2 Z of Apex Court reported as Mls Residents Welfare Association NoidaVs State of U 80rs 2009 131RCR ICivill 87 was not brought to the notice of this Court There are two opinionsexpressedby Honble Supreme Courtthoughon one pointeview IS commonthat where the document 9Ce IS for the value of the propertyshould be taken into consideration on the date of for thepurpose of payment of stampduty However in view of the Iater Honble SupremeCourt has carved out an exception that Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 1 b CWP No921 of 2010 8 0 wherethedelayhas been caused due to no fault of the person IiabOe to pay stampduty the value should be as prevalentwhen the document was to be registered under the contract between the Regarding binditlgnalure ofthe HonIoleSupreme Court Ilot onlyon HighCourts and SubordinateCourts but even for lisissuehas been consideredby tlleSupremeCourt itself a a ConstitutionBenchof theHonbleApexCourt in lhe case ofCentral Board 0 0 of DawoodiBohra Communityand anotherVS Stateof Maharashtraand Z 20051 2 SupremeCourt Cases 673l this casc Honble Supreme another C5 I Court consideredthe doctrine of stare decisis ie the binditlgnature ofthe Z law by lhe Supreine Court On considerationof various ofthe HonbleSupremeCourt il hasbeen held C c Having ly consideredtohesubmissionsmade by I C the senior counselfor lhe partiesand having Z tloelaw Iaid down bytlhcCotlstilullonBenches CO lll theabovesaicldecisions WC wouldlike lo sum up thc V7 Z legalposition in lhe followingterlnS tl l 9 The Iaw Iaid down by this Court in a decision bya Benchoflargcr is binding on any Bench of lesser or coequal strength el supplied From theratio of the aforesaidjudgmeiltit can be impliedly ailcl infered that a Benchofcoequalstlrentlh if intendsto disagree Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document I 40 CWP No921 of2010 9 0 witll an earlier j il has to refer the same to Honble the Chief Justoice of India for consideratlonbya LargerBenchby reasons forthesaine but it cannot with it Its naturalcorollarywouldbethe Vlew in earlier Bench of strength should be taken as a ln thepresentcase the dated161 1 2007 in case 1 of Stateof Ralasthanand olhers vs Mls KhandakaJain JewellerstsuloralIS Cc by a Bench of two Honble Judges wherein it has been laid down that the 0 Ca stampdulies Oll the date of of lhe document 1S I the reasons for delayHowever the C5 I dated15009 in case of Mls Residents Welfare Association Noida Z supralwhileholdingthesamcview carved oul ail exceplioil and held lhat thestampdutywould be payable on the instruction on tlhevalue of the L for which the sale was to be made iftohedelay ofthe r sale deed is the control of the partyliable to pay lhe dutye ln thts Z casealso the vendor refusedto execute the saledeed in accordancewith the C agreeinentto sell which forccd the vendee to flle a suit which caused 7 Z delay in execution and of lhe instruinent As noticcdhere abovewhen the in Mls ResidentsWel fare Association Noida suioral was delivered earlier view was not brought to the notice of Honble Court aild thus the Court had no occasion to agree or disagree with the earlier of strengthUnder such circumstances 4 theearlier opinionwhich has not beenovereruledby a Bcnch of larger strcllgtllmust contillueto prevailin view of lhe ratio of lhe Constitution Benchjudgmentin tlle case of State of Rajaslhanand others vs Mls Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 41 CWPN0921 of2010 10 KhandakaJain Jewellers supral Since thejudgment Ill case of Stateof Raiasthanand othersVS IvllsKhandaka Jain Jewellers supral dealswith tohe contoroversy and would be the orders do tlol sul fromany inlirmitylegalor factual This writpetitionis dismissed with no order as to costs e C 1J 1PermodKohlil 0 042011 Judge 0 rp e t5 Notel Whetherbe referredto the Reporteror not7 Yes I Z I 0 l1 Z 1 11 l lV 7 z 4 ll Gupta Suruchi 2014.04.29 12: 28 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document