Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 16323 of 2007 and C.W.P. No. 16351 of 2007 arising out of the order dated 15.5.2006 passed by the Collector and the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner, whereby the sale deed dated 20.2.2006 in respect of the land measuring 3 kanals situated in Patti Shahjadpur was found to be deficient in Stamp Duty. This order shall also dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 16324 of 2007 and 16325 of 2007 in respect of sale deed dated 20.2.2006, with regard to the land measuring 7 kanal 18 marlas.
2. After the execution of the aforesaid sale deeds, the Sub Registrar impounded the instruments on the ground that the proper market value has not been shown in the sale deed and sent the same to the learned Collector for determining the market value of the land in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Haryana (for short 'the Act'). The learned Collector found mat the instruments are insufficiently stamped and claimed Rs. 9,750/- from the vendees in respect of 3 kanals and a sum of Rs. 25,650/- in respect of the land measuring 7 Kanals 18 Marias from each of the vendees. The said order was affirmed by the learned Commissioner on 28.11.2006.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities under the Act have assessed the market value on the basis of Collector's rate. It is contended that the Collector's rate cannot be taken into consideration as such rates have no statutory support. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court Chamkaur Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Anr. A.I.R. 1991 Punjab and Haryana 26.
4. In the aforesaid case, the guidelines issued by the Collector, Patiala on 4.8.1988, laying down minimum price of different kinds of land for the purposes of registration came up for consideration. It was held that these guidelines clearly take away the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar to reach any quasi-judicial decision with regard to the valuation of the transfer of a particular property falling within his jurisdiction. It was so held after holding that the Sub-Registrar performs quasi judicial functions in determining or estimating the price of the properties. It was, thus, held that the guidelines could not be issued under Section 47-A of the Act. It was, thus, held as under:
We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that these so-called guidelines could neither be issued under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act nor are these in consonance with the same, rather these just run counter to the language and intendment of the said provision. We are further of the opinion that no guidelines can possibly be issued or laid down for controlling the quasi-judicial decision of a particular functionary or authority under a particular statute.
5. It may be noticed that the court noticed the fact that there is no provisions in the Registration Act, 1908 under which the Collector can issue the order or the directions of the type as contained in the guidelines, nor the Registrar has the power to determine the market value of the property sold in order to assess the chargeability of the stamp duty on the same. Prior to incorporation of Section 47-A of the Act, there was no provision in the Act to call upon the Collector or the Registering Officer to make an independent inquiry about the property conveyed. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohabir Singh and Ors. : AIR1996SC2994 , wherein it was held as under:
6. It would thus be seen that the aforesaid guidelines would inhibit the Registering Authority to exercise his quasi-judicial satisfaction of the true value of the property or consideration reflected in the instrument presented before him for registration. The statutory language clearly indicates that as and when such an instrument is presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself before registering the document, whether the true price is reflected in the instrument as it prevails in the locality. If he is so satisfied, he registers the documents. If he is not satisfied that the market value or the consideration has been truly set forth in the instrument, subject to his making reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A he registers the document. Thereafter, he should make a reference to the Collector for action under Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 47-A. Accordingly, we hold that the offending instructions are not consistent with Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A.. It would, therefore, be open to the State Government to revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with the law.
6. In Haryana, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are substantially the same as they were inserted in Punjab, vide Act No. 21 of 1982. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, are applicable with full force to the cases arising out of the registration of the instruments in Haryana as well. It may be noticed that in Punjab substantial amendments have been made in Section 47 of the Act as also in the Rules framed thereunder.
7. In the present case, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner has adverted to, any independent evidence to return a finding in respect of the market value of the land. The basis of the order is Collector's rate of the land in dispute as Rs. 9 lac per acre. Neither there is any reference to any sale instance in the neighbourhood nor any other evidence, which is without any statutory support, cannot be given effect to in view of the judgments referred to above. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity.
8. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside.
9. However, liberty is granted to the Collector to assess the market value of the land in accordance with the principle of law enunciated in the above said two judgments.
10. Writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.