IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL Writ Petition No. 99 of 2002 (M/S) Giriraj Kishore Sharma, S/O Chhote Lal, R/O Mohalla-Qeela, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. 2. Additional District Magistrate, (Finance/Revenue), District Udham Singh Nagar. … Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Date April 21, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- I. Issue any suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 28-11-2000 and dated 31-1-2002 passed by the respondent no.2, (annexure No. 5 and 7 to the writ petition). II. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. III Award the cost of the petition. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that on 6-6-1978, one Nirmal Singh S/O Sri Kharak Singh executed a registered agreement to sale of land in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos. 302, 302/1, 303/2, 303/4, 303/6, 303/24, total measuring 2.55 Acres @ Rs. 5000/- per Acre. Said Nirmal Singh received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money, which was adjustable towards sale consideration at the time of execution of sale deed, which was agreed upto 31-11-1979. 2 According to the petitioner, the vendor did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, hence the vendee/petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance before the Civil Judge against the vendor, which was registered as Original Suit No. 150 of 1984. The suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19-11-1985. The vendor was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months. The vendor did not comply with the direction of the Court, therefore, the petitioner moved execution application. Ultimately the sale deed was got executed through executing court. It appears that the stamp duty worth Rs. 1305/- as per agreement between the vendor and vendee was paid and not on the market value of the property at the time of execution of the sale deed on 27-2-1998. 3. The record shows that a reference was made by the Sub Registrar Kashipur to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 9-3-1998 that the stamp duty was payable on the sale deed registered in favour of Sri Giriraj Kishore Sharma under the orders of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nainital in accordance with Rules. Ultimately, the Additional District Magistrate- respondent no.2 registered a Stamp Case No. 52/96 of 1998-99 State Vs. Giriraj Kishore Sharma and issued notice to him. The respondent no.2 after hearing both the parties did not find favour with the contention of the petitioner and held that the stamp duty was payable on the circle rate of land fixed by the Collector, i.e. @ Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. It was also held that the stamp duty of Rs. 40,800/- was payable on the sale deed in question. Accordingly the petitioner was directed by order dated 28-11-2000 to make good deficiency of stamp duty i.e. Rs. 39,495/- within a period of fifteen days. Aggrieved by the order dated 28-11-2000 passed by respondent no.2, the petitioner preferred Stamp Revision No. 9/2 of 2000-2001 before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. 3 4. The revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital after hearing both the parties also did not find favour with the petitioner and upheld the findings of the respondent no.2. Hence this writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record. Despite sufficient time given to the State time and again, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vendor Nirmal Singh did not execute the sale deed as per registered agreement dated 6-6-1978 in favour of the petitioner and ultimately the sale deed was got executed through court as per judgment and decree for specific performance passed in favour of the petitioner. Hence the stamp duty was payable at the rate as prevailing on the date/dates mentioned in the agreement. 7. I have also carefully examined the orders passed by the two authorities below, and have perused the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamps Act including the provision of Section 47-A. It finds place to mention here that in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner has inadvertently mentioned that the impugned orders dated 28-11-2000 and dated 31-1-2002 have been passed by the respondent no.2. The order dated 28-11-2000 alone has been passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 31-1-2002 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital in stamp revision. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal and others Vs. District Magistrate/Collector Ghaziabad and others” [(1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 62] while dealing with the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, in paragraph no.5 has held that “the object of the Indian Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such duty is payable. This is to 4 protect the State revenue. It is a matter of common knowledge that in order to escape such duty by unfair practice, many a time undervaluation of a property or lower consideration is mentioned in a sale deed. The imposition of stamp duty on sale deeds is on the actual market value of such property and not the value described in the instrument. Thus, an obligation is cast on the authority to property ascertain its true value for which he is not bound by the apparent tenor of the instrument. He has to truly decide the real nature of the transaction and value of such property. For this, the Act empowers an authority to charge stamp duty on the instrument presented before it for registration. The market value of a property may differ from the sizes of area and other relevant factors. This apart there has to be some material before such authority as to what is the likely value of such property in that area. In its absence it would be very difficult for such registering authority to assess the valuation of such instrument.” 8. It is not disputed that the agreement to sell was executed by the vendor in favour of the petitioner on 6.6.1978 and the sale deed was executed through court on 27-2-1998. It is settled law that the agreement for sale is not a transfer deed. This is only a contract between the parties for execution of sale deed. The stamp duty has to be paid by the vendee/purchaser on the date of execution of the sale deed, i.e. 27-2-1998 in the case at hand. The consideration set forth in the agreement for sale cannot be the criteria to pay the stamp duty. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (supra) that the imposition of stamp duty on sale deeds is on the actual market value of such property and not the value described in the instrument. 9. Earlier also, this Court, following the ratio of the Apex Court verdict in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (supra), has taken similar view in Writ Petition No. 1312 of 2001 (M/S), Smt. Krishna Kochhar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on April 09, 5 2007. The facts of that case are almost similar to the facts of the case at hand. 10. In view of the reasons and discussion above, I find that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated 28-11-2000 passed by the respondent no.2 in the Stamp Case referred to above as well as the order dated 31-1-2002 passed by revisional authority- Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. There is no scope of interference by this Court in the writ petition on merits. Accordingly, there is no force in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Interim order dated 20-3-2002 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. 13. All applications stands disposed of accordingly. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 6