IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 9, 2008 Surjit Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 207, 169 and 168 of 2008 as common question and facts are involved. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 1.2.2007 (P-1), passed by the District Collector, Muktsar, directing the petitioners to deposit the deficient stamp and registration fee alongwith interest. A further prayer has also been made for setting aside the appellate order dated 31.7.2007 (P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. A perusal of both the orders shows that categorical findings have been recorded to the effect that as per agreement to sell the land was sold @ Rs. 7,26,100/- per acre, whereas the sale deed was registered at a much lower rate. The aforementioned finding has been recorded on the basis of C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 agreement to sell. The findings are discernible from the following para of the order dated 1.2.2007, passed by the District Collector:- “ After hearing the arguments of Shri Gurdev Singh Brar, counsel for the purchasers and after considering the documents on the file and after perusing the reports of the Sub Registrar, Muktsar and SDM Muktsar I am of the considered opinion that the land measuring 24 Kanals 0 Marlas purchased vide Wasika No. 4698 dated 20.02.2006 is situated at village Chak Duhe Wala and this sale deed has been got registered @ Rs. 3 lacs per acre. But after perusal of the agreement, it was found that the agreement was executed between the parties in respect of the said land @ Rs. 7,26,100/- per acre. But the agreement has been executed between Kailash Rani wife of Radhey Sham and Parkash Singh son of Kishore Singh resident of Muktsar and Shri Jaswinder Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Village Barkandi and there are signatures of both the parties on the said agreement. This Registree has also been executed between the same parties. The Khasra numbers of the agreement and the registered sale deed are also same. Therefore, it is clear that the agreement was executed between the parties in respect of the land in question @ Rs. 7,26,100/- per acre and sale deed be also registered at the same rate. Therefore, it is also clear that the sale deed had been executed at a less rate. But taking a lenient view, the sale price of the said land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs 2 C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 per acre. According to which the price of the suit land comes to Rs. 2,31,250/-. Therefore the required stamp fee and registration fee be received according to the said rate. Therefore, as per the Notification No. 30/L.E.G/2004 dated 24.8.2004 of Punjab Government and Punjab Act No. 20 of 2004 an amount of Rs. 1,22,600/- being less stamp fee and (Rs. 10,000/- registration fee has already been deposited) and the interest @ Rs. 12% from the date of the registered sale deed till today which comes to Rs. 13,500/- and that total amount of Rs. 1,36,100/- be got recovered from the purchaser. Notice be issued to deposit this amount under “0030 Stamp & Registration © Stamp non Judicial”. Order announced. File be sent to the record room.” The order passed by the District Collector has been upheld by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that no inquiry in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was held and the Deputy Collector in the initial order has acted in violation of the aforementioned provision. According to learned counsel an inquiry was required to be held in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act and only then the petitioners could have been directed to pay the difference of stamp duty and registration fee. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and do not feel persuaded to accept the same. 3 C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 Section 47-A (2) and (3) of the Act, on which reliance has been placed, reads as under:- “47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with. (1) xx xx xx xx (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid, and the deficient amount of duty, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty; Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property. (3) The Collector may, suo moto, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller 4 C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorised by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, would be payable by the person liable to pay duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty: Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in not setting forth the 5 C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 correct market value of such property.” A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act would show that the Collector on his own motion within a period of three years from the date of registration of an instrument is competent to call for and examine any such instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself with regard to the correctness of the value of the property or for the consideration disclosed. He can also consider all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description of the same. After such an examination, if he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid then he may proceed to give reasonable opportunity of hearing and also hold an inquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, to determine the value of the property or the consideration etc. If he finds that there is deficiency in payment of duty then he may recover the same from the person liable to pay the duty alongwith interest from the date of registration till the payment of deficient amount. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that a complaint has been made by one Gurdev Singh that the land, in fact, was sold at Rs. 7,26,100/- per acre and the transfer deed transferring the land had been registered by making payment of far less stamp duty. Alongwith the complaint a copy of the agreement to sell was also added. The Sub-Registrar, Muktsar, recommended action in terms of Section 47-A of the Act. The Deputy Collector issued notice to show cause to the petitioners under Section 47-A of the Act. The petitioners appeared and requested the Deputy Collector for grant of time to file reply. A written reply was filed through the Counsel. The 6 C.W.P. No. 207 of 2008 Deputy Collector considered the copy of the agreement to sell as well as reports of the Sub-Registrar, Muktsar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muktsar and then concluded that the sale deed has been got registered @ Rs. 3 lacs per acre whereas the actual price agreed between the parties was Rs. 7,26,100/- per acre. It is evident that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and a thorough inquiry was held as per the requirement contemplated by Section 47-A (2) and (3) of the Act. In view of above, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 9, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 7