CWP NO.3243 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :
4. 2.2013 Jai Singh ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA PRESENT: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana ...Notes:
1. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?.
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?...RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 (P- 2) passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Joint Registrar, Hisar.
The petitioner-Jai Singh purchased 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land from Veena Devi, Dharam Pal and Poonam vide a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.3,12,500/-.
One Rajender Singh son of Dal Singh resident of Amar Market, Hansi made a complaint of under-valuation claiming that the area where the land was situated was commercial in nature.
The market price for such land was fixed at Rs.3300 per sq.
yard.
Finding that there had been evasion of stamp duty, the matter was remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Hansi for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the CWP NO.3243 o”
2. Act”.).The second order impugned dated 16.12.2005 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Hansi.
The market price of the land has been assessed at Rs.3300/- per square yard, and therefore, the total price of land, subject matter of the sale-deed works out to Rs.49,50,000/-.
Stamp duty has been assessed at Rs.3,96,000/- whereas the vendee had affixed stamp duty of Rs.29,000/- on the sale deed.
A direction was issued to recover balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from the vendee.
The Sub Divisional Officer exercising the powers of the Collector issued notice under Rule 5(i) of the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973, for recovery of amount assessed as arrears of land revenue.
Aggrieved by the order of the SDM, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar claiming that the assessment on the basis of market rate at the time of purchase was not correct; there was no deficiency in the payment of stamp duty; the impugned orders have been passed without any evidence; the reference was time barred; the action was taken on the private complaint of one Rajinder Singh, therefore, the reference was bad in law; Rajinder Singh was inimical to the vendee and had therefore complained.
The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar by the impugned order dated 7.10.2008 (P-6) has rejected the appeal.
A finding of fact has been returned that Sale Deed No.2287 dated 30.8.2005 pertains to land situated behind the Bus Stand, Hansi and is adjacent to the Main Bazar and has main roads on both sides of the plot.
The area is commercial and shops stand constructed around it in Amar Market, Hansi.
Market value has been determined on the basis of agreements to sell.
The land is within the limits of Municipal Council, Hansi, and therefore, the demand of insufficient stamp duty is based on documentary evidence.
Aggrieved by the ordeRs.the petitioner filed CWP No.416 of 2009 in this Court.
The writ petition was partly allowed on 3.2.2009 and the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Collector, Hansi was set aside.
Consequently, the further orders were also nullified.
The matter was remitted to the Collector, Hansi for redetermination of market value of the land in issue.
The petitioner was given CWP NO.3243 o”
3. the right to produce on record such evidence as may be relevant in determining the actual market value of the land on the date of the transaction.
In implementation of the order of this Court, the Collector, Hansi redetermined the market value.
The petitioner produced evidence and both the parties were given opportunity of presenting their respective evidences.
The vendee/petitioner mentioned in his statement that he has already presented the entire evidence earlier and does not want to present any further evidence.
The site was inspected by the Collector, Hansi.
The Collector relied on the report of the Tehsildar/Sub Registrar attesting the market value of disputed land at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per square yard in the year 2005.
The second round of litigation commenced before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar in appeal against the fresh order dated 15.5.2009.
The petitioner relied on seven sale deeds relating to tiny pieces of land.
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 24.11.2009 (P-10).These orders are under challenge before this Court in this writ petition.
On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed a written statement.
A short affidavit dated 24.1.2013 has been filed under direction of this Court.
A tabulated chart of 17 sale deeds executed between the period 19.4.2004 to 1.2.2011 has been inserted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit.
The sale deeds pertaining to the period at or about the date of the sale deed in the present case are shown from Sr.Nos.1 to 5.
These sale deeds are in respect of small pieces of land being 33, 25, 20, 45 and 1215 sq.
yards respectively for which the Collector rate has been shown at Rs.600/- per square yard for residential land, Rs.1500/- per square yard for commercial land and Rs.8.00 lacs to Rs.10.00 lacs per acre for Gair Mumkin land.
The remaining sale deeds which are registered after the sale deed in question for the period 27.2.2006 to 1.2.2011 range from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.39.00 lacs per acre progressively.
All the sale deeds relate to transactions recorded for Amar Colony, Hansi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remand directions of this Court issued on 3.2.2009 issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court CWP NO.3243 o”
4. have not been complied with in letter and spirit and the earlier orders passed by the authorities below which had been quashed by this Court, have been reiterated without due application of mind.
It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registered sale deed in the present case was for 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.3,12,500/- which would reflect a sale consideration of about Rs.11.00 lacs per acre which is in conformity with Collector rates mentioned in the tabulation for agricultural land, and therefore, there was no cause for suspicion of under-valuation.
It is not correct to compare tiny pieces of land of a few square yards with the larger size of land measuring 2 kanals and 10 marlas, and therefore, reliance on such sale deed would not be justified in the determination of market value of the land in question.
It may be a relevant factor, but not the sole factor for saddling the petitioner with liability.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the orders passed in remand suffer from the same infirmity as that of the previous exercise done up to the level of Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar which orders were quashed by this Court, while remanding the matter for re-consideration.
The flaws of the previous order remain in the fresh order.
It would not be justified to base price of land or its market value by comparing the sale deed in the present case with that of the sale deeds relating to mere 33, 25, 20 and 45 sq.
yards.
The sale deed dated 30.8.2005 mentioned in the tabulation is for a plot of 1215 sq.
yards where commercial value has been assessed at Collector rates of Rs.2000 per square yard and Rs.10 lacs per acre.
There is significant gap in the two justifying action under Section 47-A of the Act in the present case, and that too on a complaint by a third party.
The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Hansi in his order dated 16.12.2005 (P-3) should not have relied upon random enquiries from “people”.
in Amar Market, Hansi that the market price in that area is about Rs.3500/- per square yard.
“People”.
of the locality may tend to inflate market price for personal interest.
Collector's rates though may be used only as a prima facie material to alert the authority regarding the value of the land, they CWP NO.3243 o”
5. cannot by themselves be sole determining factors for determination of market value of the land.
The competent authority must hold an independent inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed for that purpose under Rule 4 of the Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments).Rules, 1978 read with Section 47-A of the Act and base its determination on evidence of valuation of instruments after notice and hearing and opportunity to lead evidence, see the Division Bench decision of this Court in Naresh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 217.
The argument of the learned counsel for the State that the matter should again be remanded for yet another consideration for passing freah order, is unfair and unjust as ample opportunity was available and is, therefore, rejected.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the demand raised by the impugned orders Annexures P-2, P-8 and P-10 is quashed, being illegal, arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations and untrustworthy and odious comparison of small parcels of land and to that extent, the impugned orders are declared ipse dixit, unreasonable, and legally and factually bad.
If the sale deed has been impounded, the same be returned.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 4 2.2013 MFK