Judgment:
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17210, 17211, 17214, 17234 and 17236 of 2008, involving similar questions of law and facts. To dictate order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 17210 of 2008.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Punjab through Sub-Registrar, Chamkaur Sahib, district Rupnagar with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 11.10.2007 (P5), accepting appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against order passed by the Collector on 30.11.2006 (P3), demanding an amount of Rs. 42,667/- towards deficient payment of stamp duty on execution of a sale deed presented by respondent No. 1 on 20.9.2006
3. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is member of a scheduled caste. Land in dispute was allotted to him in the year 1973 by the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation (in short the Corporation). It was banjar land. Respondent No. 1 made it cultivable and on payment of entire amount of price, in installments, conveyance deed was presented for execution on 20.9.2006. Stamp duty was paid as per value of the land mentioned in the allotment letter. Sale deed was impounded by the Sub-Registrar by invoking the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Stamp Act')- Upon notice, respondent No. 1 put in appearance and prayed that he belongs to a poor section of the society. To uplift living conditions of members of the scheduled caste, land was allotted to him by the Corporation. It was prayed that in view of provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation Act, 1970 (in short 1970 Act), additional stamp duty cannot be charged from him. The Collector, by taking note of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and circular issued by the State government from time to time, came to the conclusion that the stamp duty was payable on the market price of the property, when the sale was presented for execution. Vide order dated 30.11.2006, respondent No. 1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 42,667/- towards deficient stamp duty affixed, on the proposed sale deed. Respondent No. 1 went in appeal, which was accepted vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2007, primarily by placing reliance upon some instructions issued by the State of Punjab in the year 1994, wherein it was provided that for the lands allotted by the statutory authorities/ government instrumentalities, stamp duty shall be charged on the price mentioned at the time of allotment and not on the market value existing at the time of execution of the sale deed. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Mr. Sharma has vehemently contended that the instructions issued in the year 1994, upon which reliance has been placed by respondent No. 2, were not applicable in the present case. Those instructions were issued regarding land allotted by the Improvement Trusts in the State of Punjab. He further stated that the above said instructions were superseded by the subsequent instructions, issued by the State of Punjab, wherein it was provided that the stamp duty shall be charged as per market value, existing at the time of execution of the sale deed. By stating as above, he prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 11.10.2007, passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside and that of the Collector dated 30.11.2006 be restored.
5. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Mr. Dhaliwal, counsel for respondent No. 1 who, by making reference to 1970. Act, argued that the provisions of that Act, being a special Act, will prevail upon the provisions of the Stamp Act. He further, by referring to Section 33 of 1970 Act, stated that the Collector was not justified in demanding additional amount towards stamp duty. He further argued that the writ petition filed through Sub- Registrar, Chamkaur Sahib is not maintainable because the same has not been verified by the competent officer.'
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. It is not in dispute that land, in dispute, was purchased by respondent No. 1 from the Corporation constituted as per provisions of 1970 Act. The Corporation was incorporated with a view to uplift and improve living conditions of members of the Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab. As per Section 16 of 1970 Act, it shall be the primary duty of the Corporation to undertake the task of economic upliftment of the members of the Scheduled Castes in the State. To fulfill the above said object, land was allotted to the petitioner. As per facts on file, it was land of inferior quality. Respondent No. 1 made it cultivable. As per allotment letter, sale consideration was to be paid in installments. After payment of the entire amount of sale consideration, conveyance deed was presented for registration, which was impounded by the Sub-Registrar for want of payment of deficient stamp duty. This Court feels that action, in view of the provision of Section 33 of 1970 Act, was not justified. That provision reads as under:
33. All instruments executed by or on behalf of the Corporation in relation to its business shall be exempt from payment of stamp duty and registration fee:Provided that exemption from payment of stamp duty shall apply in the case of such instruments only as are specified in Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Exemption form registration fee and stamp duty.
8. It is not controverted by the State counsel that the provisions of 1970 Act, being a special Act, would prevail on the provisions of the Stamp Act. To deny right of respondent No. 1 it was only stated that wherever, it is needed, in Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act for the State of Punjab, exemption to pay stamp duty has been indicated. For execution of a conveyance deed, exemption is provided only for assignment under the Copyright Act and Co-partnership deed and not for transfer of the property.
9. This Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. Section 33 of 1970 Act clearly provides that all instruments executed by and on behalf of the Corporation in relation to its business, shall be exempted from payment of stamp duty and registration fee. Proviso to this section stipulates that exemption from payment of stamp duty shall apply in the case of such instruments only as are specified in Schedule I-A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Above said provision is very clear and it indicates that for any instrument executed by or on behalf of the Corporation, in relation to its business, payment of stamp duty and registration fee is exempted for the -instruments mentioned in Schedule I-A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Conveyance deed has been mentioned in the above said schedule and exemption is also provided with regard to execution of some other instruments. Had the intention been to give only those exemptions mentioned in the Schedule 1-A there was not necessity to add Section 33 in the 1970 Act. Even in the absence of any provision in the 1970 Act, a purchaser would have been entitled to get exemption(s) regarding execution of instruments as mentioned in the above said Schedule. Under the Umbrella of Section 33 of 1970 Act, conveyance deed executed by the Corporation in favour of respondent No. 1 was exempted from payment of stamp duty.
10. Mr. Sharma has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhjit Singh Cheema, Advocate v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Chandigarh and Ors. CWP No. 11530 of 2005, decided on 18.9.2008, to press his claim for payment of stamp duty as per market value existing at the time of execution of sale deed. This Court is of the opinion that benefit of that judgment cannot be extended to the petitioner in this case. Provisions of Section 33 of the 1970 Act were not subject matter of discussion in that case and to the purchaser of the land, in that case, protection like one granted to respondent No. 1 in this case under Section 33 of the 1970 Act was not available.
11. In view of finding given above, it is not necessary for this Court to give finding regarding whether the writ petition filed through Sub- Registrar is maintainable and whether instructions issued in the year 1994 were superseded or not.
12. In view of facts mentioned above, these writ petitions fail and are dismissed.