1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6010/2007 Moti Lal Dangi vs LRs of Sohan Kumar & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : -11.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. RK Thanvi, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Balia ] Mr. Dilip Kawadia ] Mr. GS Ratore ], for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenge the order of the trial court – Addl. District Judge No.2, Udaipur passed in Civil Original Suit No.4/05 deted 24th July, 2007. In the impugned order, the trial court held that agreement to sell dated8.2.2002 which has been executed on stamp of Rs.100/- should have been executed on stamps value 3% of consideration mentioning in the agreement and that stamp duty @ Rs.3% comes to Rs.60,000/-. The trial court also held that the plaintiff-petitioner is liable to pay the penalty for admitting the document in question in evidence of Rs.5,99,000/- by this, the petitioner was required to pay total stamp duty of Rs.6,59,000/-. The contention of the petitioner is that by ordinance dated 14th May, 1999 clause (bb) under item no.5 in appendix (d) of the Rajasthan Stamp Law 2 Adaptation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) was inserted. According to the petitioner by this Ordinance for one year, the stamp duty payable on agreement to sell was increased to 3% in place of fixed amount of stamp duty of Rs.100/-. According to petitioner this Ordinance was in force for the year 1999 to 2000 only whereas the agreement was executed on 8.2.2002 and, therefore, the agreement of 8.2.2002 could have been executed on stamp of Rs.100/-. It is submitted that subsequently the Act of 1952 was amended but it was amended in the year 2004 i.e., w.e.f. 27th May, 2004, therefore, said amendment on 27th May, 2004 cannot be applied to the agreement executed in the year 2002. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the civil court itself could not have decided the question of imposing of penalty on account of execution of document on stamp of less stamp duty or instrument and the civil court should have impounded the document and could have sent to the concerned authority for levy of stamp duty and penalty. The Ordinance dated 14th May, 1999 is very clear and by this amendment, the provision has been inserted in the Act of 1952 to increase the stamp duty on certain categories of agreements to the extent of 3% in place of payment of fixed stamp duty 3 of Rs.100/-. This amendment was not limited for a particular year of 1999 to financial year 2000. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that stamp duty paid on the agreement to sell dated 8.2.2002 was sufficient stamp duty. So far as contention of the petitioner that the trial court itself should not have imposed the penalty on account of less payment of stamp duty on agreement and the trial court could have impounded the document and could have sent it to the competent authority for adjudication of penalty leveable on account of less payment of stamp duty on agreement is concerned, that has merit and the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed to the extent that the agreement dated 8.2.2002 is impounded and the trial court may sent the document to the competent authority for deciding the amount of penalty levyable on the agreement dated 8.2.2002. The document in question shall be admitted in evidence only on payment of full stamp duty and the penalty,which may be imposed by the competent authority. The writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed as mentioned above. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-