COLLECTOR OF STAMPS Vs. HEMLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge allowing Civil Writ Petition No 687196 and directing it reassesss the duty payable on the disclosed consideration of Rs. 10,000 in the conveyance deed, has filed the present appeal. The appellant's case is that the admitted consideration in the entire transaction, is Rs. 5,61,000 on which stamp duty is liable to be paid.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be noticed in brief : (i) Delhi Development Authority had granted a lease of 3.65 acres of land situated in Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi to the respondent No. 2, Mis. Parvana Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, for construction of flats for its members. In the event, flat No. A-37 was allotted by respondent No. 2 to two of its members, viz. P. K. Roy and Pranab K. Roy, (hereinafter referred to as the 'original allottees'). (ii) The aforesaid original allottees entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 1 whereby they agreed to sell and transfer all their rights in flat No. A-37 for a consideration of Rs. 5,51,000, being the amount admittedly paid by respondent No. 1 to them. The allottees had also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Ramesh Chandra, husband of respondent No. 1 and authorised him to execute the sale conveyance deed. as required. (in) On 20-2-1995. the attorney of the original allottees applied to the Delhi Development Authority for converting leasehold rights in respect of the land underneath the flat to freehold rights in favour of respondent No. 1. In response the Delhi Development Authority sent an unsigned and unexecuted conveyance deed in prescribed form for execution to the altorney. The Delhi Development Authority also communicated that the request for reversion of the interest in the land had been. accepted and that the unexecuted conveyance deed forms should be got stamped from the Collector of Stamps, appellan therein, (iv) The unexecuted conveyance deed was submitted to the Collector of Stamps, i.e. the appellant for adjudication of the stamp duty payable. Alongwith the said document, argreement to said dated 2-5-1995 in, favour of respondent No. 1 by the original allottees and the power of attorney in favour of husband of respondent No. 1 as well as letter of allotment issued by the respondent No. 2 society in favour of the original allottees were sent. (v) The appellant vide its communication dated 29-1-96 informed' the respondent No. 1 that stamp duty and transfer duty amounting to Rs. 44.884 was liable to be paid. The appellant proceeded on the basis that the property had been purchased by the respondent No. 1 from the original allottees for a consideration of Rs. 5,51.000. mentioned in the agreement to sell. Further, a General Power of Attorney had also been executed but since no said deed or conveyance deed. had been executed, no stamp duty and transfer duty had been paid till date. Appellant took the position that stamp duty and transfer duty on the consideration amount of the agreement to sell and conversion charges under Section 2.8(3) read with Article 23 of the Schedule 1A of Stamp Duty Act was payable. The duty was computed as under : Agreement to sell : "Rs. 5,51,000.00 Conversion Charses as per conveyance deed sent by DDA : Rs. 10,000.00 Total : Rs. 5,61.000.00 Stamp Duty : Rs. 16.000 Stamp Duty : Rs. 16,000 Copy Charges : Rs. 4.00 Total : Rs. 44,884.00 (vi) As noticed earlier, respondent No. 1, aggrieved by the aforesaid demand had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 687196. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to re-assees the stamp duty on the conveyance deed which disclosed a sale consideration of Rs. 10,000, although the admitted sale consideration paid by the respondent No. 1 to' the original flat owner was Rs. 5,51,000.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that admittedly respondent No. 1 had purchased the flat for a disclosed consideration of Rs. 5,51,000, which sum was reflected in the agreement to sell that had been sent alongwith the conveyance deed for adjudication of the stamp duty payable. It was argued that in terms of Section. 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, the consideration and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, were required to be truly and fully set forth. Reliance was also placed on Section 28(3) of the Indian Stamp Act. The section, caters to a situation where a purchaser of property having not obtained the conveyance deed contracts to sell the same to another person. In such an event, where the property is to be conveyed to the said purchaser, the conveyan.ce is charged with ad valorem duty i.e. consideration for sale by the original purchaser to the subsequent purchaser. Learned counsel also argued that in the instant case, the Delhi Development Authority should not have recognised the agreement to sell, as being barred under Section, 49 of the Stamp Act. Further, that the Delhi Development Authority was duty bound to impound the said document. The argument being that the Delhi Development Authority could not by the conveyance deed sent to' respondent No. 1 permit the conversion of leasehold rights into freehold. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the authorities relied on by the learned Single Judge in holding that the Collector of Stamps cannot hold a.n enquiry into the actual consideration and has to go by the disclosed consideration were not applicable. It was urged that since the agreement to sell itself disclosed the consideration, the same should have been adopted for the purpose of levy of stamp duty.