C.R. No.2201 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2201 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2009 Smt. Seema Garg .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The order of the Collector demanding an additional levy of Rs.53,785/- from the purchaser under a document of sale is challenged by means of civil revision. The contentions by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner are two-fold. One, the Collector does not have the power to question the valuation on the basis of an audit objection and the assessment of under-valuation of the document is contrary to law. The second objection is that there is no basis for the Collector to assess the value of the property to be higher than what was stated in the document and to demand an alleged deficiency of Rs.53,785/- as additional duty payable on the instrument. 2. On the contention that there is no power to the Collector C.R. No.2201 of 2002 (O&M) -2- to revise the valuation on the instrument, the learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in Civil Revision No.3110 of 1997 dated 02.12.1998. In the said judgment, the sale had been registered on 14.11.1995 and the Naib Tehsildar had informed the District Revenue Officer, Kurukshetra that in view of an audit objection, it was seen that the market value of the property had not been properly determined. The Collector on the summary enquiry came to the conclusion that the market value was higher and demanded an additional duty to be paid. Referring to earlier decision, it was laid down that there is no provision in the Act whereunder a deficient stamp duty could be recovered by the Registering Authority either by the vendor or from the vendee subsequent to or after the registration of the sale deed. The law stated is what it is, that a Registering Officer cannot demand an additional amount. There is a difference between the power of Registering Authority to demand and the power of the Collector to demand a deficient stamp duty. Section 47-A(2) reads thus: "On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determining the market-value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange of gift and the duty as aforesaid and, thereupon, the difference, if any, in the amount of duty C.R. No.2201 of 2002 (O&M) -3- shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty." The power vests with the Collector and that power is based squarely on a bare reading of a statute. It ought not to be confused at all with the power of the Registering Authority. The Collector's power could be either on his own motion or on report and if in a case, the audit objection makes possible for a Collector to doubt the valuation as given in the instrument, it is within his powers to direct an enquiry after notice to the party and determine the valuation as prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Any other construction to Section 47-A(2) will mean violence to the bare reading of the provision and will constitute a statement per encuriam. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel that the Collector did not have the power to determine the market valuation. 3. On the more substantial ground that the determination of a higher value by the Collector was not justified, the learned counsel refers to the fact that the Collector had, while passing the impugned order, made reference to his spot inspection where he had ascertained to himself that the property was not an agricultural land but it was a house site with houses on all sides to the property. The Collector had then made reference to an alleged statement secured through a report from Patwari that the property was higher in value and had demanded Rs.53,785/- as the additional stamp duty payable. The mode of assessment of the market valuation is wholly untenable. A market value is a value C.R. No.2201 of 2002 (O&M) -4- of how consensus ad idem is struck by a willing purchaser to pay for a property to a willing vendor. The determination has, therefore, to be on what the parties agreed and if in a given case, the consideration is recited in the document as what sustained a transfer of tile, the authority that raised the doubt about the proper valuation has to satisfy itself that it is deliberately undervalued. The best method of determining such undervaluation will be to see whether there is any other instrument registered at or about the same time for a higher value in relation to the same category or nature of property. With no other evidence at hand a mere reference to an alleged report of a Patwari, which does not even make a mention about even the valuation, the order of the Collector cannot be sustained. The order does not bring about any specific credible information about higher valuation of the property. The intrinsic value of the property as a house site when the purchaser was buying it only as an agricultural land may show possibilities of an increased value but it is invariably a matter of evidence and never a matter of conjecture. 4. The order of the Collector is, therefore, set aside and the civil revision is allowed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 21, 2009 Pankaj*