State of Haryana vs J.C. Sethi

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision petition is against the older of District Judge, Hissar, dated 12-3-1990 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent u/s 47A(c) of the Indian Stamp Act was accepted thereby reversing the decision of the Collector, Hissar, dated 16-12-1988.

Briefly put, the proceedings in this case were initiated on the basis of the complaint made by one Sh. Thandi Ram Mittal resident of Uklana to the Collector, Hissar, that though the agreement of sale dated 2-5-1984 of Kothi No. 37, Defence Colony, Hissar, between Sh. J. C. Sethi, Advocate, and Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary and Captain Lokinder Singh was for a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs but actually the sale has been effected on 28-9-1984 for a sum of Rs. 3 60 lakhs and this way the parties have evaded the stamp duty and so defrauded the government to the tune of Rs. 57,000/-. Similar complaint was filed by Gulshan Kumar resident of Model Town, Hissar, on 13-7 2985. Notice was issued by the Collector, Hissar, to Sh. J. C. Sethi, Sh. Lokinder Singh and Pushpa Chaudhary on 19-7-1975 who came present end filed written statement denying the charge of evasion of stamp duty.

Both the parties adduced evidence in support of, their case. The Collector on perusal of evidence on record assessed the value of the Kothi at Rs. 5.50 lakhs and accordingly directed the respondent to make up the shortage of stamp duty by issuing notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation Instruments) Rules, 1978.

Sh. J. C. Sethi assailed this finding of the Collector before the District Judge, Hissar, on the ground that the Collector erred in Jaw in coming to the conclusion that the value of the property-- subject matter of the sale deed, is Rs. 5 50 lakhs. The Collector, in fact, ignored the vital evidence which clearly brings out the case set up by the appellant that he had to sell the property at lower rate than agreed in view of the circumstances which came to light after the execution of the agreement. Elaborating Sh. J. C. Sethi, appellant, referred to the notice Exhibit R. 1 issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority about the alleged encroachment made by him. As per this notice, about 150 sq. yards of built up area under the Kothi-subject matter of the sale deed-was alleged to have been encroached upon by Sh. Sethi. Since the wife of Mr. Sethi was to proceed abroad and he was in need of money and also under pressure to vacate the premises in his occupation on rent from none other than the complainant, namely, Sh. Thandi Ram Mittal, Sh. Sethi thought of compromising the matter with the purchasers. The fact that notice was issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority was proved by examining Sh. Ram Singh, Junior Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority. Besides, this, appellant Sethi examined one Dharambir Sharma to prove that the material used in respect of this Kothi was substandard. In fact, some cracks had already developed in the building. Not only this, be got the value of the building assessed by examining a valuer who assessed the value of the building at Rs. 3.20 lakhs. The District Judge on perusal of the relevant evidence on record accepted the contention of Mr. Sethi and held that the price paid between the parties was Rs. 3.60 lakhs and thus there was no evasion of stamp duty. Resultantly, this appeal was accepted and order of the Collector was reversed.

The learned counsel for the State in all fairness has not assailed the various factual aspects highlighted by the District Judge while reversing the decision of the Collector, but all the same has contended that even if there was notice with regard to the encroachment of some area of the Kothi, subject matter of the sale deed, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, yet the same has not been decided and thus this could hardly be taken as a circumstance thereby compelling the pa ties to lower the sale price by almost half the amount. The fact that notice has already been issued with regard to the alleged encroachment over an area measuring 150 sq. yards is, indeed, a vital consideration which in ail probabilities must have swayed the patties to another agreement. How and in what manner the precise encroachment, if proved, would have affected the structure of the building can be imagined. One cannot lose sight of the fact that normally a purchaser is most reluctant to purchase a property which is under dispute With this background, the sale executed for the amount subsequently settled between the parties cannot be termed to be a case of under valuation. Even otherwise, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the District Judge. This being so, this revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.