CW 1063/99 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 1063/1999 Shri Bhratahri Lok Seva Trust Versus Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order ::: 26/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. MM Ranjan & Mr. HS Khandelwal, for petitioner Ms Raj Sharma, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents-State Instant petition has been filed by Trust (petitioner) assailing order dt.19/12/96 (Ann.3) of Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur in Case No.1008/96, against which revision petition was preferred but the same was also dismissed by Board vide order dt.23/12/98 (Ann.4). Facts, in brief, relevant for determining dispute raised herein are that petitioner filed a suit (No.98/1971) for specific performance before Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City which was decreed vide judgment dt.15/04/1972 – operative part whereof has been quoted in para 1 of instant petition, for execution whereof, execution application was filed and at this stage, Executing Court directed to register sale deed, which was registered vide document dt.17/05/96 (Ann.1). However, based upon market value of property duly assessed as per report dt.25/07/96 (Ann.2) submitted by Sub-Registrar (Stamps) in exercise of powers U/s 47A(1) of Rajasthan Stamps CW 1063/99 //2// Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, the Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur City vide order dt. 19/12/96 (Ann.3) directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,200/- as deficit stamp duty which included interest and penalty of Rs.80/-, against which petitioner Trust preferred revision U/s 56 & 57 of Indian Stamps Act before Board of Revenue; sole contention was that since sale deed has been registered under the decree passed by Civil Court, as such market value at the time of presentation of sale deed for registration is not material and should be taken note of when agreement was executed between the parties and that apart, petitioner further raised grievance that there was no basis/material available before Sub-Registrar (Stamps) while assessing market value of property – in absence whereof, the order of Additional Collector (Stamps) is not legally sustainable. While dismissing revision petition vide judgment dt.23/12/98 (Ann.4), the Board of Revenue repelled both the contentions urged on behalf of petitioner and inter-alia observed that as regards market value of property, it was taken note of place where the property is situated and so also the material placed and made available besides report submitted based on market value of property, neither any evidence came on record which could CW 1063/99 //3// repel report of sub-Registrar (Stamps) nor placed by petitioner on record even at the stage of revision, in absence whereof, report submitted by Sub Registrar (Stamps) could be questioned. As regards market value being taken note of at the stage when document was executed and the stage when it was presented before Sub-Registrar (Stamps) for its registration, the Board observed that it could be considered only at the stage of presentation of documents for its registration. Counsel for petitioner frankly concedes as regards legal issue raised herein as to whether relevant date for determination market value is current valuation at the time of execution of documents or the date when the agreement was executed has to be looked into, and submits that such a legal issue has been considered by Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers (AIR 2008 SC 509) vide judgment dt.16/11/07 where the question involved was as to whether the valuation should be assessed on the market rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed or when the parties entered into agreement to sell and the Apex Court finally observed ad infra: “10. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between an agreement to sell and a sale. Stamp duty on a sale CW 1063/99 //4// has to be assessed on the market value of the property at the time of the sale, and not at the time of the prior agreement to sell, nor at the time of filing of the suit. This is evident from section 17 of the Act. It is true that as per Section 3, the instrument is to be registered on the basis of the valuation disclosed therein. But Section 47-A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) Stamp Duty Act contemplates that in case it is found that properties are under valued then it is open for the Collector (Stamps) to assess the correct market value. Therefore, in the present case when the registering authority found that valuation of the property was not correct as mentioned in the instrument, it sent the document to the Collector for ascertaining the correct market value of the property. 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 CW 1063/99 //5// 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". 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.” (emphasis added) In the reply respondents have specifically averred that valuation of the property is based on the Index prepared by Stamps & Registration Department on the basis of recommendations of CW 1063/99 //6// District Level Committee based on the sale deed of similar property situated in the same area, whichever is higher. As regards market value of property under sale deed in question as assessed by respondents, suffice it to say that it was based on inspection report of property in question having been assessed by Sub-Registrar (Stamps) and as per its report based on factual assessment, petitioner was called upon to deposit further deficit stamps duty. The Board of Revenue has also considered submissions in details and found no substance to interfere with order of Collector (Stamps) and even in instant petition, no material has been placed by which it could be inferred that what has been assessed based on inspection made by sub- registrar (Stamps) vide its report, which could be interfered with. In view of what has been observed by Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers (supra), this Court does not find justification to interfere with orders impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p6/1063CW99Mar26.doc