ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the State of Haryana and Sub-Registrar, Sonepat not to recover the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 96,445/-. The petitioner's agricultural land situated at Village Garhi Brahmanan, District and Tehsil Sonepat was acquired and award was given on May 4, 1995. The compensation amount was paid to the petitioner on May 12, 1995. A notification dated August 11, 1995 (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Government of Haryana, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby stamp duty was remitted on sale deeds executed in favour of farmers whose land was acquired by the Haryana Government for public purposes and who purchased agricultural land in the State of Haryana within 1 year of the receipt of compensation. The remission was subject to two conditions - one, it was limited to the amount of compensation and, two the farmer had to produce a certificate obtained from the concerned Land Acquisition Collector regarding the acquisition of land and the amount of compensation paid to the farmer.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he had purchased agricultural land in the District of Sonepat out of the amount of compensation within one year from the date of receipt of that amount. Compensation was received by the petitioners on May 12, 1995. Sale deeds were executed by the vendors in favour of the petitioner as under :- (i) Sale deed No. 4320 in respect of the sale of land for Rs. 4,98,750/- on November 20, 1995. (ii) Sale deed No. 5825 in respect of the sale of land for Rs. 70,000/- on January 17, 1996, and (iii) Sale deed No. 5789 in respect of the sale of land for Rs. 67,000/- on January 16, 1996.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the notices issued by the Sub Registrar for the payment of stamp duty on 3 sale deeds in question with the plea that at the time of registration of the sale deeds the Sub Registrar had rightly remitted the stamp duty in the light of the notification issued by the State Government. The purchases of land by the petitioner out of the compensation money had taken place after the coming into force of the said notification and were, therefore, fully covered by the notification. Recovery of stamp duty was wrongly being made, taking an incorrect view that exemption from the payment of stamp duty had been granted to those buyers only in whose favour award was given by the Collector after the issuance of the notification i.e. after August 11, 1995. In the case of the petitioner, award had been given on May 4, 1995, much before the date of notification granting exemption.