CR No.68 of 2001 - 1 - In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 15.09.2010 Smt.Shanti Rani ... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.B.S. Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with one Dina Nath for the purchase of land measuring 32 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land, situated in village Shekhpura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The seller, however, did not perform his part of the contract. The petitioner was constrained to institute Civil Suit No.72 of 1997 for specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.1997. On the basis of the Civil Court decree, the rate of the land was determined by the parties at Rs.46,000/- per acre. A sale deed bearing No.498 dated 02.06.1997 was presented for registration before the Registering Officer of the area of village Shekhpura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, for a consideration of Rs.1,85,150/- for 32 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land. The Stamp Auditor, Hisar Circle, Hisar, raised an objection regarding the under valuation of the instrument of sale. On such objection being raised, the sale deed was referred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil)-cum-Collector, Hansi for determining the market value of the property and the stamp duty payable in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector, Hansi, vide his order dated 31.05.1999 (Annexure P-1) assessed the CR No.68 of 2001 - 2 - market value of the said land not less than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. However, the Collector rate of the land in the vicinity being Rs.75,000/- per acre, the stamp duty payable was assessed by the Collector, Hansi. It was held that the petitioner is liable to pay further amount of Rs.1,16.725/- on the balance amount of the value of the land determined by the Collector at Rs.3,01,875/-. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.1999, dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Collector, Hansi. It is against the aforesaid orders that the present petition has been filed. Mr. B.S. Makkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Collector, Hansi, as also the Appellate Authority, Hisar, have totally ignored the Civil Court decree in determining the value of the land. According to the petitioner, the value of the land as per Civil Court decree was/is Rs.46,000/- per acre and, thus, the Collector is not entitled to fix any other value of the property for the purpose of registration. The controversy involved in this writ petition is no more res integra having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases, 339 and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Civil), 296. In both these cases, on the basis of agreement to sell, the sale consideration was determined. Since the agreement to sell was not complied with by one of the parties, suit for specific performance came to be filed which was ultimately decreed and on the basis of the Civil Court decree, a document/instrument of sale was presented before the competent Registration Officer who referred the matter to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act for determination of the market value of the property. It has been held that the market value of the property at the time of the registration of the sale deed has to be CR No.68 of 2001 - 3 - charged as per the Collector rates and the sale consideration fixed in the agreement to sell has no relevance. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Court in Khandaka Jain Jeweller's case (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- “The expression "execution" read with Section 17 leaves no manner of doubt that the current valuation is to be seen when the instrument is sought to be registered. The Stamp Act is in the nature of a taxing statute, and a taxing statute is not dependant on any contingency. Since the word "execution" read with Section 17 clearly says that the instrument has to be seen at the time when it is sought to be registered and in that if it is found that the instrument has been undervalued then it is open for the registering authority to enquire into its correct market value. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench in the present case had taken into consideration that the agreement to sell was entered into but it was not executed. Therefore, the incumbent had to file a suit for seeking a decree for execution of the agreement and that took a long time. Therefore, the Courts below concluded that the valuation which was in the instrument should be taken into account. In our opinion this is not a correct approach. Even the valuation at the time of the decree is also not relevant. What is relevant in fact is the actual valuation of the property at the time of the sale. The crucial expression used in Section 17 is "at the time of execution". CR No.68 of 2001 - 4 - Therefore, the market value of the instrument has to be seen at the time of the execution of the sale deed, and not at the time when agreement to sale was entered into. An agreement to sell is not a sale. An agreement to sell becomes a sale after both the parties signed the sale deed. A taxing statute is not contingent on the inconvenience of the parties. It is needless to emphasize that a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and considerations of hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction.” In view of the above legal position, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 15.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES