BASHIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to register the sale deed on payment of the stamp duty on the valuation as mentioned in the agreement to sell.

(2.) shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that an agreement to sell dated 12-6-1985 was entered between the petitioners and their vendors namely, syed muzaffar hussain and md. Zubalr in respect of the land appertaining to plot nos. 552 and 553 having holding no. 37 measuring 8 katha 1 dhoor situated in mauja madhubani in the district of purnea for a consideration of rs.24,151/-. Petitioners at the time of agreement paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as an earnest money and the balance consideration money was to be paid by 30th of September, 1985 and on payment thereof, the vendor agreed to execute and register the sale deed. Petitioners' vendor failed to execute and register the sale deed in spite of the petitioner's readiness and willingness to pay the consideration money due but the vendor declined to execute the sale deed. Left with no option, petitioners filed title suit no. 19 of 1986 for a decree for specific performance of contract. The competent civil court, by judgment and decree dated 17-6-1991, decreed the petitioners' suit and directed the petitioners to deposit the balance of the consideration money by 17th of july, 1991 and the vendors in turn were directed to execute and register the sale deed by 13th of August ,1991 failing which the petitioners were en titled to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court. Petitioners deposited the balance consideration money as directed by the civil court but their vendors did not execute the sale deed and accordingly, the petitioners put the decree in execution which was registered as execution case no. 1 of 1993.

(3.) it seems that during pendency of the execution case, the executing court called for a report from the sub-registrar. Purnea in regard to the valuation of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty for registration. The sub-registrar by its communication dated 2-5-2003, informed to. The executing court that prevailing valuation of the land shall be applicable for the purpose of registration. The report submitted by the sub-registrar was placed for consideration before the executing court and by order dated 26-5-2003. The executing court observed that the. Sub-registrar is entitled to charge the stamp duty at the rate fixed by the government and the petitioners' plea to charge the stamp duty on the valuation given in the agreement to sell was rejected. Petitioners, thereafter, filed an application for review of the said order but the same was also rejected by the exdcuting court by order dated 26-6-2003.