AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-
“I. For quashing the order dated 05.09.23 passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate, Kaimur in Stamp Valuation Appeal no. 01/2023 as well as letter no. 692/ dt. 26.9.23 by which they have been directed to deposit Rs. 17,36,100/- within sixty days otherwise Certificate Case will be filed for realization of the said amount.
II. For holding that the reference made by the Registering Authority Under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( herein after the act) on 25.11.22 on the report submitted by Office Clerk Anil Kumar Gupta for examining the correctness of the market Value of the land covered unde. sale deed registered and delivered on 9.10.17. is void, abinitio .
III. For holding that the institution of Stamp Case no.-01/ 23 and issuance of notice to the petitioners on 23.1.23 by the learned Collector Cum District Magistrate, Kaimur after two years of registration and delivery of sale deed dt. 9.10.17 is nullity and could not be sustained in the eye of law.
IV. For holding that the order impugned passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate U/s 47-A (III) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is without jurisdiction as same is barred by the law of limitation.
V. For holding that the order impugned passed by the Collector cum District Magistrate U/s 47-A (III) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is no nest in the eye of law being vague, non-speaking and not based on any evidence while determining the market value of the concern land and in gross valuation of the provisions laid down in Rule 11 and 12 of the Bihar Stamp ( Prevention of Under Valuation of instrument), Rules, 1995 ( herein after the Rules).
VI. For holding that the finding given in the order impugned with regard to physical status of the concern land is absolutely incorrect as apparent from the boundaries disclosed in the sale deed and is situated in the link road and no construction whatsoever is going on this purchased land.
VII. For holding that the order impugned has been passed without assigning any reason to differ the pleading of the petitioners as initially submitted by them but subsequently no notice whatsoever has been given to them and final order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity as such in violation of the principles of natural justice.
VIII. For holding that no enquiry by any authority has held after noticing and in presence of the petitioners which mandatorily required, so the order impugned is not based on any evidence.
IX. For any other reliefs for which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the factual matrix and legal aspects of the case in consideration of this Hon'ble court."
The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they purchased 1.80 Acres of land from Shambhu Nath Pandey and others through registered deed of sale dated 9.10.17 (Deed No.6362) for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-, and that they have been in possession of the same without any break since that day. Soon after registration of the said deed, the petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names in Register II, which was allowed, whereupon Parwana was issued in their name, and they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar, for which rent receipts are issued to them. It is stated that, behind the back of the petitioners, a report under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was submitted against the valuation of the land in question by Office Clerk Anil Kumar Gupta without any authorization of the authority, pursuant to which a reference was made on 25.11.22 and a notice was issued on 23.1.23 to appear before the Collector, Kaimur. The petitioners appeared, but the Collector, by order dated 5.9.23, directed them to deposit deficit stamps, fine etc., and a notice was thereafter issued vide letter No.692 dated 26.09.23 directing them to deposit Rs.17,36,100/- within sixty days, failing which a Certificate Case would be filed for realization of the said amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Office Clerk, was not competent to submit a report about the market price of the land in question without any direction of the Authority, after two years of registration and delivery of the sale deed dated 9.10.17, and that the report and the reference made on that basis are void ab initio. It was further submitted that the institution of Stamp Case No.01/23 under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, after two years of registration and delivery of the sale deed, is a nullity and unsustainable in the eye of law, and that the impugned order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate is without jurisdiction, being barred by the law of limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order is vague, non-speaking and not based on any material evidence for determination of the market value of the land, and is in gross violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1995, and that the finding in the impugned order regarding the physical status of the land is incorrect, as is apparent from the boundaries disclosed in the sale deed, the land being situated on the link road with no construction going on it. It was also submitted that, after receipt of the report, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to explain the circumstances in which the proceeding had been initiated, no notice was given to them subsequently, and no enquiry was made in their presence as statutorily required, and that the order is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the State, submitted that the petitioners purchased 1.80 acres of land at Village Bare, Khata No.195, Plot No.44, from Shambhu Nath Pandey and another for Rs.14,00,000/- vide sale deed No.6362 after concealing facts to evade Government revenue, paying only Rs.85,000/- as stamp fee. It was further submitted that, during the audit (10/2016 to 05/2022), the Audit Party of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna pointed out that the land had been split into two pieces, one piece of 3 decimal being registered as commercial and the other of 180 decimal as irrigated, whereupon the District Sub-Registrar, Bhabhua, vide letter No.919/NI dated 25.11.2022, directed his Head Clerk, Anil Kumar Gupta, to inspect the site and submit a report. The Head Clerk, after informing the parties on their mobile, inspected the site and found that deed No.6362 was executed on 10.10.2017 showing the land as irrigated, and that deed No.6404 was executed on the next day, 11.10.2017, for 3 decimal as commercial land adjacent to it, and he treated the entire land of 1.51 Acre (1.48+0.03) as commercial and submitted his report. On receipt of the report, the District Sub-Registrar, vide letter No.988 dated 17.12.2022, referred the matter to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that, on the said reference, the Collector initiated Stamp Appeal No.01/2023 (State Vs. Aman Singh & Ors.) and a notice was sent to the petitioners vide letter No.474 dated 23.01.2023, after which the petitioners participated in the proceeding but produced no solid documents in their favour, and that, after hearing, the Collector accepted the valuation of the land (1.48 Acres) at Rs.21,60,000/-, fixed the stamp fee at Rs.12,96,000/-and, after deduction of Rs.85,000/- already paid, directed the petitioners by order dated 05.09.2023 to deposit the deficit stamp fee of Rs.12,11,000/- along with a fine of Rs.1,21,100/-, being 10% thereof. It was also submitted that the petitioners were fully aware of the proceeding and were given ample opportunity of hearing, and that the impugned order is not barred by limitation, as the limitation of two years applies, in terms of the decisions in Chandrakant C. Adesara Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1997 Patna 145) and State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. M/s Mahajan Sabha, Gurudaspur & Ors. (AIR 1996 SCC (1) 538), only where the Collector/IRO decides suo motu or on a reference from the Inspector General of Registration, and not where the reference is made by the Registering Authority. It was lastly submitted that the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Collector dated 05.09.2023, that the writ petition is therefore not maintainable, and that it is fit to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, at this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1899"), herein below:-
" (3) The Collector may suo motu within two years from the date of registration of such instrument not already referred to him under Sub-section(1) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon and if, after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property, has not been rightly set forth in the instrument or is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any Rules made under this Act, he may determine the market value of such property and duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in Sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of commencement of the Bihar Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Ordinance, 1986."
It is well-settled principle of law that proceedings under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act can only be initiated by the Collector suo moto within a strict statutory period of two years from the date of registration of the subject document. In the present case, the initiation of proceedings after a lapse of five years is a blatant violation of the mandate envisaged under section 47-A (3) as the action is entirely barred by limitation, rendering the impugned order bad in law and is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone.
In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners in Stamp Valuation Appeal No.01/2023, pursuant to the reference made by the District Sub-Registrar, Kaimur (Bhabhua), and the notice issued to them on 23.01.2023, after registration of the sale deed dated 09.10.2017 (Deed No.6362), i.e., after a lapse of more than five years, is clearly barred by the period of two years prescribed under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thus, this Court finds that the action of the District Sub-Registrar, Kaimur (Bhabhua), and also that of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur, is not only arbitrary and perverse but also against the mandate of Section 47-A(3) of the Act, 1899, hence, the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur in Stamp Valuation Appeal No.01/2023, is quashed. Consequently, the letter No.692 dated 26.09.2023, issued pursuant thereto, has got no legs to stand, hence is also set aside, and the respondents are debarred from proceeding any further in the matter.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is allowed.