GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue raised in the Instant petition is whether the petitioner is covered by notification dated 21-12-2001 (P-2) or subsequent notification dated 3-11-2006 (P-8), issued by the respondent State under Section 9 (l) (a) of the indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act'), granting exemption to specified persons from payment of stamp duty in case of transfer of immovable property has been made to another specified person. It is in this context that the petitioner has prayed for quashing demand notice of recovery dated 15-3-2005 (P-3), order dated 23-1-2006 (P-8), demand notice dated 5-5-2006 (P-6) and the appellate order dated 27-2-2007 (P-10), The respondents have issued demand for recovery of Rs, 1,98,000/- from the petitioner in respect of the transfer deed bearing No. 1403, dated 23-1-2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is a minor and great grandson of one Shri Bhag Singh. Shri Bhag Singh had a predeceased son, namely, Shri Baldev singh, who died on 24-7-2002. Shri Baldev singh also had son, namely, Kuldeep Singh, who pre-deceased him on 31-8-1999. The petitioner was born out of the loins of Shri kuldeep Singh. Shri Bhag Singh, great grandfather of the petitioner executed a transfer deed bearing No. 1403, dated 23-1-2003 (P-1), registered at Sub-Tehsil bhogpur, District Jalandhar, in respect of agricultural land measuring 54 Kanals 7 marias and 6'/2 Biswas, situated in village kandala Guru, District Jalandhar. The value of the land disclosed in the transfer deed is rs. 30,00,000/ -. The petitioner being the transferee did not affix any stamp duty on the ground that notification dated 21-12-2001 (P-2), stipulates grant of exemption in case transfer of immovable property is made by the great grandfather to the great grandson. The aforementioned fact has been mentioned in the transfer deed. The transfer deed was registered without any demur in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhogpur, District jalandhar. However, on 15-3-2005, the petitioner received a notice under Section 47a (3) of the Act, calling upon him to appear before the Collector-cum-Additional deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, to answer all the queries (P-3), On 25-5-2005, the petitioner submitted his objections claiming that he is Class-I heir of the transferor executant of the deed and waa covered by the notification dated 21-12-2001 (P-2), It was further claimed that no stamp duty was leviable in case transfer deed has been made in favour of Class-I heir (P-4 ). The Collector, jalandhar, after considering the reply held that the petitioner was not covered in the category of Class-I heir and was liable to pay deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,98,000/ -. The operative part of the order, dated 23-1-2006, passed by the Collector, Jalandhar (P-5), reads as under :- "the reply of the Vendee was considered, Regarding this the Govt, instructions issued vide Notification dated 23-12-2001 recognize the grandson as class-I heir. But regarding great grandson there is no instruction, In this connection this Court asked for guiding precedents, in this case, from Financial Commissioner revenue Department (Stamp Vendor registration Branch) Vide letter No. 1158/reader/ a. D. C. dated 23-9-2005 who have written vide their letter No. 10490 dated 20-12-2005 regarding the decision of this case that further action may be taken vide notification dated 21-12-2001 and 8-1-2004. Both the notification of Govt. were thoroughly gone into in which there is no mention of recognizing great grandson as Class-I heir. Hence, it is ordered that the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,98,000/- may be recovered from the vendee in accordance with the price assessed by the Audit party as Rs. 33,00,000/-in the charge of ownership on deed No. 1403 dated 23-1-2003. The file after completion and classification consigned to records. The order pronounced. "

(3.) ON appeal to the Commissioner, jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the view taken by the Collector was maintained. It was, however, observed that the order dated 23-1-2006, was passed after obtaining clarification from the Financial Commissioner, revenue, Punjab and thorough examination of the facts of the case (P-10 ).