IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.09.2009 M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) C.M. No.14759 of 2009 This application has been filed for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the notification dated 28.5.2009 issued by the Government of Punjab. With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is taken up on board for hearing. CWP No.6344 of 2007 This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos.6190 and 6344 both of 2007, involving similar questions of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.6344 of 2007. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to the order dated 30.3.2006 (P2), vide which, the petitioner has been Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007 directed to pay an additional amount, towards deficient payment of stamp duty, on registration of a sale deed on 25.8.2005. Further challenge is to the order dated 5.2.2007 (P4), dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner purchased a shop No.62 in new grain market, Tanda, in open auction, held on 10.2.1988, for an amount of Rs.51,000/-, however, the sale deed for the said property was executed on 25.8.2005, for the above said amount. The sale deed was impounded by the Sub-Registrar by invoking the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, the Act) on the ground of deficient payment of stamp duty. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Collector, who issued notice to the petitioner for charging of additional amount towards stamp duty. The petitioner was given an opportunity to produce evidence and thereafter, vide order dated 30.3.2006, the petitioner was ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.37,722/- towards stamp duty and registration fee. The petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 5.2.2007. Hence, this writ petition. After notice of motion, this writ petition was admitted on 14.1.2008. The petitioner, in the meantime, filed Civil Misc. application bearing No.14759 of 2009 with a prayer that this writ petition be disposed of in terms of the notification dated 28.5.2009, issued by the State of Punjab. Relevant portion of the notification reads thus:- “2. In the Punjab Stamp (dealing of under-valued instruments) Rules, 1983 in rule 3-A for the existing explanation inserted vide notification No.16/1/2009- ST.II/1772, dated 2nd March, 2009, the following explanation shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 2nd March, 2009:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007 “Explanation:- The consideration amount fixed at the time of allotment of immovable property by any Government/ Semi Government Organization shall be deemed to be the Collector’s rate and the stamp duty shall be charged for registration of document upon the consideration amount fixed by the Government/ Semi Government Organization, provided that document is got registered by the original allottee upto 2nd September 2009 from issue of this notification or within three months from the payment of last regular installment as per schedule of payment of such allotment.” It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the provisions mentioned above, added by the notification, in question, in the Rules, are retrospective in nature, as the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are under challenge, so the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the amendment in the rules, mentioned above. To say so, reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004 (8) J.T. 589 and it has been stated that unless expressly provided, the amendment in question, will relate back to the date when the Rules were framed. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the counsel for the State. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. It is not in dispute before this Court that a similar dispute, as to whether, in case of property purchased from any public authority, the stamp duty shall be charged at the market price when sale deed was presented for 3 Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007 registration, came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.11530 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 18.9.2008, specifically held that in regard to such like sale deeds, irrespective of sale consideration, mentioned in the letter of allotment, stamp duty will be payable on the market value of the property, when document was presented for registration. It is also necessary to mention here that exactly similar instructions issued by the State of Punjab, were also considered by the Division Bench and no benefit was given to the petitioner on the basis of those instructions. In another writ petition bearing No.4426 of 2008, similar contention was raised, as is being raised by the petitioner in this case, relying upon those very instructions, a Single Bench of this Court observed as under:- “This Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. The matter has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Chaman Singh Bhatao and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 447 (P&H), wherein, by dealing with the similar controversy, it was observed as under:- “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question which arises for determination of this Court is whether the date of agreement to sell could be the basis for calculating and determining the market value of the land for the purpose of assessing the stamp duty and registration fee. The answer to the aforementioned question is not for to seek because Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008(1) 4 Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007 Civil Court Cases 259 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 91 has held that stamp duty on sale of immovable property has to be assessed on the market value at the time of such sale and not at the time of agreement to sell nor at the time of filing of the suit. The two instruments namely agreement to sell and sale deed are entirely different in nature, content and effect. Interpreting Section 47A of the Stamp Act, 1952 (as amended by the State of Rajasthan), it has been observed that although the instrument has to be registered as per the ostensible value but Section 47A of the Act confers ample power on the Collector to assess market value of such land. It has been categorically observed in para 10 of the judgment that market value of the instrument has to be seen at the time of execution of the sale deed and not at the time when agreement of sale was entered into. It has been further held that a taxing statute is not to apply upon contingent based on the convenience of the parties and that it has to be construed strictly.” Contention of counsel for the petitioner, that amendment in the Rules is retrospective, is not coming out from the records. A reading of the explanation/ amendment clearly indicates that it was added for a specific period. In the notification dated 28.5.2009, it is specifically stated that the earlier explanation shall be deemed to have been substituted w.e.f. 2.3.2009 and under the explanation added by the notification, the relief was granted only upto 2.9.2009. Intention of the rule framing authorities is very clear that the rule was extended only for a limited period. In view of facts of this 5 Civil Writ Petition No.6344 of 2007 case, ratio of the judgment in the case of Zile Singh (supra), will not be of any help to the petitioner. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 18.09.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 6