CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts stated and contentions raised in this petition are fairly representative of the facts and contentions raised in the 40 connected civil writ petitions, Nos. 7662, 8550, 9856, 9905, 10032, 11822 of 1988; 1506, 4733, 5131, 8021, 15841, 10327, 15081, 15090 to 15093, 15447 to 15449, 16047, 16206, 16208, 16802 of 1989; and 142 to 144, 262, 274, 1560, 1728, 1729, 2844, 4012, 4013, 4358, 4390, 4543, 4153 and 5996 of 1990, and these deserve to meet the same fate as of this petition. Facts are as follows:- The petitioners agreed to purchase 2 1/2 acres of land, situated in village Kahangarh Bhutana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, from Rupinderjit Singh son of Inder Singh, for a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 and for the said purpose the requisite non-judicial stamp papers were purchased by them on Aug. 10, 1988. The sale deed, however, could not be executed and registered in view of the fact that on the same day instructions styled as and'guidelinesand' dt. Aug. 4, 1988 were received by the Sub-Registrar (Tehsildar), Samana from the Collector (Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar), Patiala, laying down the floor or the minimum prices of different kinds and qualities of land on the basis of their situation or location for purposes of registration of instruments relating to transferring of any property. Copy of these guidelines is Annexure-P1. As per the same, rates vary from Rs. 13,000.00 per acre to Rs. 20,000.00 per square yard. Since guidance (guidelines) with respect to different classes of land and properties falling within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Samana, were inadvertently omitted in Annexure-P1, the Collector issued fresh instructions dated Aug. 8, 1988 (copy Annexure-P1/A) specifying therein that Chahi and Nehri types of land within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Samana, would be rated at Rs. 35,000.00 per acre. In the instant case we are not concerned with other types of land. These guidelines purport to have been issued under S. 47A of the Stamp Act as introduced vide Punjab Act No. 21 of 1982. Stand of the petitioners is that these instructions or guidelines are neither covered by the above noted provision of law nor are referable to any other legal source of authority and thus are wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.As against this, the respondents plead that :- "The impugned circulars contain guidelines for the use of Sub-Registrar and indicate the minimum valuation of Chahi and other lands to avoid evasion of stamp duty. It is denied that in view of the guidelines circulated by the Collector, Patiala, the petitioners were unable to execute the sale deed and get it registered. These circulars do not debar the parties from execution of the sale deed and getting the same registered in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law. The circulars are in consonance with the spirit and provisions of law. The relevant provisions of law on the point are contained in S.47-A of the Stamp Act, 1982 (Punjab Act No. 21 of 1982) _. _. _. _. Since stamp duty and registration fee are both chargeable on ad valorem basis, there is a tendency among parties to conveyance deeds to depress the value of property or consideration paid therefor as cited in the conveyance deed." According to the respondents, it is to meet this situation that the present guidelines have been issued. In order to sustain this plea, a pointed reference has been made to the following paragraphs of these guidelines by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Additional Advocate General:-

(2.) At one stage, while finding it difficult to sustain the above noted instructions or guidelines in the context of S.47-A of the Stamp Act, Mr. Sarin, learned Additional Advocate General, sought to urge that in view of sub-sec. (2) of S. 68 of the Registration Act, the Registrar is competent to issue any or general order to the Sub-Registrar, commanding the latter to perform his duties in accordance with the same as the functioning of the latter is under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of the Sub-Registrar is situated. Mr. Sarin, however, to our mind, while submitting so, omits to notice the language of sub-sec. (2) of the said section which lays down that the Registrar can only issue an order which is "consistent with this Act" and that order has again to be with reference to a particular act or omission committed by the Sub-Registrar. Mr. Sarin, however, is not able to refer to any provisions of the Registration Act under which the Collector can issue order or directions of the type as contained in Annexures-P. 1 and P. 1/A. On the contrary, as has been ruled by this Court in Siri Krishan Jindal v. Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), District Patiala, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 266 and the Apex Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1972 SC 899, the Registrar has no power to determine the market value of the property sold in order to assess the chargeability of the stamp duty on the same. Similarly, prior to the incorporation of S. 47-A in the Stamp Act, there was no provision in that Act to empower the revenue, the Collector or the Registering Officer to make an independent enquiry about the value of the property conveyed or sold for determining the stamp duty chargeable. We, therefore, find this stand of Mr. Sarin to be equally meritless.

(3.) It is hardly necessary to say in the light of the well established aspect of rule of law that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority.