Usha Kumari and Another vs The State of Punjab and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The revision is against the order passed by the District Judge in his appellate jurisdiction u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act (for short, ''the Act''). The Collector (Stamps) had assessed the sale deed said to have been obtained by the petitioner on 14.06.2000 as undervalued and, after a notice, held that the measurement was not merely 81/2 Sarsahi, but on actual verification, it was found to be 23'' x 12'', equivalent to 1 marla 8 (square) yards. The Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a report to the Collector that the property was worth Rs. 24 lakhs, but in his local enquiry, he found that there were persons, who were prepared to make payment of Rs. 20 lakhs. The property had been dealt with at Rs. 4,99,000/-. The District Judge accepted the assessment made by the Collector (Stamps) that there had been undervaluation and affirmed the deficient stamp valuation directed to be made good to the tune of Rs. 95,010/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the Collector''s valuation as on that date which was ordered on 14.06.2000 was Rs. 5 lakh per marla. It was in fact registered at 5 times the then existing value of Rs. 1 lakh per marla. He would argue that there was no other basis for the Collector to make revised valuation except the report of the SDM and the same cannot be the basis. I would also find that in an enquiry u/s 47-A of the Act, the Collector cannot secure a report discreetly brought through the SDM and use it against the purchaser. Although the purchaser has filed his objection to the report, it must be noticed that the report of the SDM itself is supposed to be on a local enquiry. If the persons from whom the information was collected were not brought before the Collector to testify what they said, the party would only be taken as grossly prejudiced that the Collector was relying on a SDM''s report which, in turn, drew its information from the persons whose version could not be tested as true. There was, therefore, a gross impropriety involved in the Collector''s finding that there had been a deliberate undervaluation. A market valuation is not at all times the circle value; market valuation is what the market actually fetches by a willing seller offering to pay a willing buyer and the Collector ought to have in his custody all the relevant data by reference to actual transactions which were registered at the relevant time. With no data available except the SDM''s report, there was no ground for suspecting the valuation made by the petitioner.

Even while I accept that the basis of assessment was not proper, I do not think, it is essential to refer the matter again for a proper consideration, since I find in this case that there was yet another error in the sale deed in not properly describing the extent which was actually verified as a property measuring 276 square feet. The additional valuation ordered was Rs. 95,010/- and I put it to the counsel whether 25% of the same could still be taken as the amount payable by him. He said that he would have no objection if it was made the order of the Court. At the time when the order of the District Judge was put in challenge in revision, this Court had allowed for stay in excess of 50%. I reduce the assessment made to 25% of the amount already determined and quash the remaining. The order of the authorities below would stand modified to restrict the liability for deficient stamps at 25% of the amount already determined and the civil revision shall stand allowed to the above extent. The amount which has been deposited in excess of what is now determined shall be liable for refund to the petitioner with interest at 6% if the amount had been deposited with the Collector. If the amount had been deposited to the credit of the civil revision case, the proportionate part of such interest, if any that had accrued, shall be refunded. The revision petition is allowed to the above extent.