BRIJ NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 3-4-2006.

(2.) The brief facts essential for adjudication of the matter are not in dispute. One Sanat Kumar Ghosh entered into an agreement with the present petitioner on 25-7-1987, for sale of the land in question for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of earnest money by cheque. The petitioner thereafter tendered the balance sum of Rs. 80,000/- to Sanat Kumar Ghosh with the request to execute the registered sale deed; he refused to receive the amount, and did not execute the registered document. The petitioner, therefore, instituted Title Suit No. 168/88 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Gaya, for specific performance of the contract, Sanat Kumar Ghosh died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his heirs, being his two daughters. The learned sub Judge VI, Gaya, allowed the suit by his judgment and decree on 3-1-2-2003 (Annexure 2). The petitioner (plaintiff) levied Execution Case No. 4/2004, in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Gaya, and on the Court's direction deposited the balance sum of Rs. 80.000/- in Court. The learned execution Court approved the draft submitted by the petitioner (decree holder) on 26-10-2004, and directed the Seristedar to execute the sale deed on his behalf. On 2-11-2004, the Seristedar presented the deed of registration, admitted execution and submitted the report in Court. The defendants have preferred First Appeal No. 25 of 2004 (Smt. Kaveri Mitra v. Brij Nandan Singh), which is pending in this Court. The matter remained pending for one year with the registering authorities and then the petitioner was given the impugned notice dated 14-5-2005 (Annexurel) stating that the matter shall be examined in terms of Section 47-A (iii) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (Act 2 of 1899) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as to why ad valorem stamp duty calculated on the basis of the current market price of the property be not realised from him, fixing 24-5-2005 as the date for hearing. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) This writ petition was placed before a learned single Judge who, by his order dated 3-4-2006, referred it to a division bench expressing certain reservations with regard to two earlier judgments of this Court, both by learned single Judges, wherein it was held that the amended Section 47-A of the Act is not retrospective in its operation, and the stamp duty on the document of transfer shall be assessed and payable according to the valuation given in the agreement for sale, unless the authorities come to the conclusion that the valuation given therein has not been rightly set forth in the instrument tendered for registration. It was further held that the time elapsed between the agreement for sale and tendering for registration shall not operate against the person liable to pay the stamp duty unless it is purposive and is meant to deprive the State of its lawful revenue. The two judgments are reported as follows : (1) AIR 2001 Patna 161 (Smt. Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar) (2) 2004 (2) BLJ 253 (Baiju Singh v. State of Bihar)