Dhani Chand & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the circular issued by the State Government on 20.10.2002 to follow the procedure for determination of market value of the property in respect of instrument executed on the date of registration of instrument is in accordance with the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Act as amended and Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules. Some confusion has arisen as no reference was made to Rule 3-A of the Rules in the said circular though the same was published on 23rd August, 2002”. [6]. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2007[12] SCR, 105 the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that when the instrument of sale is presented for registration long CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-4-:: after the 'agreement to sell' was entered into between the parties, valuation for the purposes of fixation of the stamp duty and registration charges has to be assessed on the market rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed and not when the parties enter into an 'agreement to sell'. [7]. This Court in M/s Ralla Ram Ram Lal v State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP No. 6344 of 2007] decided on 18.09.2009 wherein the petitioner was allotted a plot by the New Mandi Township, Punjab, held that the stamp duty charges are required to be affixed as per the Collector's rate prevalent on the date when the said instrument was presented for registration. [8]. In State of Haryana & Ors. v Manoj Kumar, 2010[2] RCR[Civil] 296, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the stamp duty is liable to be affixed as per the Collector's rate prevailing on the date when the sale deed is presented for registration and/or at the rate when the 'agreement to sell' was executed. Their Lordships have ruled that the stamp duty is liable to be affixed as per the Collector's rate fixed on the date when the instrument is presented for registration. [9]. To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioners, he has referred to a recent decision dated 02.08.2010 in LPA No. 890 of 2010 [State of Punjab & Ors. v Parshotam Dass & Anr.] to contend that when the allotment is made by a government agency through an open auction without there being any possibility of evasion of stamp duty, the stamp duty and registration charges are to be affixed as per the sale price mentioned in the allotment letter. In my considered view, firstly no such inference can be drawn from the CWP No. 1743 of 2009. ::-5-:: cited decision nor the question as to whether the stamp duty and registration fee should still be charged as per the Collector's rate prevalent at that time when the said instrument is presented for registration after a long time, was raised or considered by the Division Bench. [10]. The 'allotment letter' on a tentative price, subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, is akin to an 'agreement to sell' wherein also the transfer of title or payment of the agreed sale consideration is consented to by the parties subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Suffice it to say that in M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers' and Manoj Kumar's cases [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that the stamp duty on the instrument of sale of property is required to be affixed as per the market value prevalent at the time of registration of such instrument and the same principle shall have to be applied in the case of the properties purchased from and/or allotted by the government agencies also. In other words, if the allottee avails the concession of paying sale-consideration in installments and then presents the instrument for registration after a long spell, the stamp duty and registration fee shall be required to be affixed by him as per the Collector's rate applicable at the time of such presentation. [11]. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any error of jurisdiction committed by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. No case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. September 29, 2010. dinesh ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE