ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this judgment, CWP Nos. 7745 and 8234 of 1992 are being decided together being between the same set of parties and involving identical questions of law and facts For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CWP No. 7745 of 1992. Briefly stated, the petitioners bought an area of 278.75 sq meters pertaining to a portion of shop No. 24 in Goal Market, Panipat vide registered sale deed No. 1998 dated 9.6.1989 for a sale consideration of Rs. 95,000/ -. The sale deed was registered before the Sub Registrar and stamp duty was paid on the amount of Rs. 95,000/ -. The construction over the site of shop was stated to be very old as also not fit for human habitation.

(2.) PURSUANT to certain objections, regarding under valuation of the property and payment of lesser stamp duty raised by the audit party in the year 1991, the Sub Registrar referred the matter under Section 47 -A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short, the Act) to the Collector, Panipat, respondent No. 2, for correct valuation of the properly. The Collector, Panipat, respondent No. 2, assessed the value of the property at Rs. 1,39,375/ - and ordered the petitioners to pay stamp duty on this amount. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 47 -A of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Panipat which was, however, dismissed.

(3.) THE main plank of argument propounded by the petitioners is that the Sub Registrar could not have made a reference to the Collector for assessment of the value, as Section 47 -A of the Act only vests such powers with the Collector to take suo motu notice or on receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or from the Registrar of a District in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated.