CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1743 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th September, 2010. Dhani Chand & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 24.01.2007 [Annexure P-3] passed by the Collector, Sangrur as well as the order dated 18.09.2007 [Annexure P-5] whereby their appeal against the Collector's order has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Vide these orders, the petitioners have been directed to deposit a sum of `1,46,540/- towards additional stamp duty and the registration fee in respect of Sale Deed No. 556 dated 06.09.2006 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Longowal. [2]. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners purchased the commercial plot No. 23, in New Mandi Township, Longowal in an open auction conducted by the New Mandi Township, Punjab. As per clause 6 of the allotment letter dated 1.12.1982, the petitioners could pay 75% of the balance sale price in six half yearly installments together with interest @ 6% per annum. The petitioners, after paying the entire sale price, applied for the registration of the Conveyance CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-2-:: Deed after obtaining No Dues Certificate dated 17.03.2006 [Annexure P-2] from respondent No. 4. The sale deed was presented for registration on 6.9.2006. While the petitioners affixed the stamp duty as per the allotment price mentioned in the allotment letter dated 1.12.1982, the Sub Registrar, Longowal made a reference to the Collector, Sangrur on 14.9.2006 with the remarks that as per the Collector's rate, the total value of the plot as on the date of registration was `15,46,000/-, whereas the stamp duty was affixed at a lower price and thus, the petitioners were liable to pay the additional stamp duty worth `1,36,800/- as well as registration fee of `9740/-, i.e., `1,46,540/- in total. The petitioners contested the afore- stated demand. However, their objections did not find favour with the Collector, who vide the impugned order, directed the petitioners to deposit the additional stamp duty and registration fee. [3]. The petitioners preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. [4]. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are liable to affix the stamp duty charges/ registration fee as per the sale price mentioned in the allotment letter dated 1.12.1982 or as per the Collector's rate prevailing on the date when the instrument was presented for registration? [5]. The above noticed question is no longer res-integra and stands answered in more than one decisions of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sukhjit Singh Cheema v Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Chandigarh & Ors. 2009[1] RCR [Civil], 337, a Division Bench considered the afore- CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-3-:: stated question and after examining the relevant provisions held as follows:- “Though the sale consideration mentioned in the letter of allotment or such like document cannot be disputed but what would be proper stamp duty is required to be determined in terms of Section 47-A of the Act which contemplates that it is the market value of the property on the date of registration of the instrument. Therefore, irrespective of sale consideration in the letter of allotment, stamp duty would be payable on the market value of the property determined in terms of Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules prevalent at the time of registration of instrument. Though section 47-A of the Act came into operation after the instrument of sale is registered but keeping in view the statutory intent and the fact that such Collector's rate has been fixed in exercise of statutory powers, the same can be insisted upon at the time of registration of instrument as well. Such insistence would avoid disputes and payment of deficient duty at the late stage. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the circular issued by the State Government on 20.10.2002 to follow the procedure for determination of market value of the property in respect of instrument executed on the date of registration of instrument is in accordance with the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Act as amended and Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules. Some confusion has arisen as no reference was made to Rule 3-A of the Rules in the said circular though the same was published on 23rd August, 2002”. [6]. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2007[12] SCR, 105 the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that when the instrument of sale is presented for registration long CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-4-:: after the 'agreement to sell' was entered into between the parties, valuation for the purposes of fixation of the stamp duty and registration charges has to be assessed on the market rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed and not when the parties enter into an 'agreement to sell'. [7]. This Court in M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal v State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP No. 6344 of 2007] decided on 18.09.2009 wherein the petitioner was allotted a plot by the New Mandi Township, Punjab, held that the stamp duty charges are required to be affixed as per the Collector's rate prevalent on the date when the said instrument was presented for registration. [8]. In State of Haryana & Ors. v Manoj Kumar, 2010[2] RCR[Civil] 296, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the stamp duty is liable to be affixed as per the Collector's rate prevailing on the date when the sale deed is presented for registration and/or at the rate when the 'agreement to sell' was executed. Their Lordships have ruled that the stamp duty is liable to be affixed as per the Collector's rate fixed on the date when the instrument is presented for registration. [9]. To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioners, he has referred to a recent decision dated 02.08.2010 in LPA No. 890 of 2010 [State of Punjab & Ors. v Parshotam Dass & Anr.] to contend that when the allotment is made by a government agency through an open auction without there being any possibility of evasion of stamp duty, the stamp duty and registration charges are to be affixed as per the sale price mentioned in the allotment letter. In my considered view, firstly no such inference can be drawn from the CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-5-:: cited decision nor the question as to whether the stamp duty and registration fee should still be charged as per the Collector's rate prevalent at that time when the said instrument is presented for registration after a long time, was raised or considered by the Division Bench. [10]. The 'allotment letter' on a tentative price, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, is akin to an 'agreement to sell' wherein also the transfer of title or payment of the agreed sale consideration is consented to by the parties subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Suffice it to say that in M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers' and Manoj Kumar's cases [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the stamp duty on the instrument of sale of property is required to be affixed as per the market value prevalent at the time of registration of such instrument and the same principle shall have to be applied in the case of the properties purchased from and/or allotted by the government agencies also. In other words, if the allottee avails the concession of paying sale-consideration in installments and then presents the instrument for registration after a long spell, the stamp duty and registration fee shall be required to be affixed by him as per the Collector's rate applicable at the time of such presentation. [11]. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any error of jurisdiction committed by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. No case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. September 29, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE