M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 29.12.2006 (P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak upholding the order dated 19.6.2006 (P-8) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal. A further prayer for quashing notice dated 19.12.2005 (P-5) has also been made referring the case by the Sub- Registrar, Karnal to the sub- Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Karnal. By virtue of the order passed by the various authorities, the sale deed dated 24.11.2005 has been found to be under valued and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 4,75,960/-.
(2.) THERE is a house bearing No. E-IV-C/191 measuring 248 Sq. yards situated between Committee Chowk, Kalandari Gate near Gobind Nagar, Old City, Karnal. This house was allotted to one Hans Raj Passi, who was grand father of the petitioner, was displaced person having migrated from Pakistan. The house was allotted to him as an evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Department in the year 1959 (P-1). There was some dispute raised by the Wakf Board regarding the title of the above house and Conveyance Deed was not issued in favour of aforesaid Hans Raj Passi. The matter remained pending with the authorities. Eventually, Hans Raj Passi expired and his son Om Parkash, father of the petitioner, deposited the balance amount along with interest in lieu of the allotment of house on 25.8.2005 as per orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana (P-2). Accordingly, the Conveyance deed was executed on 5.10.2005 (P-3) by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of Om Parkash Passi, the father of the petitioner, by Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal. On 24.11.2005, Om Parkash Passi, the father of the petitioner, in order to avoid any dispute between his sons and in furtherance to family arrangement-cum-settlement executed a sale deed dated 24.11.2005 in favour of his sons, the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- which was claimed to be at the Collector's rate prevalent in the area. The requisite stamp duty of Rs. 48,000/- was also affixed on it, which was registered by Sub-Registrar, Karnal. On 19.12.2005, after the registration of the sale deed, the petitioner was issued a copy of the reference order/show cause notice alleging that the sale deed had been registered at a far less price whereas the prevailing rate of the property in the area was at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per square yard and consequently, the petitioner was asked to pay the deficit sum of Rs. 4,75,960/- by way of stamp duty. The Sub-Registrar also referred the matter to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector invoking Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity 'the Stamp Act') for determining the correct value. The petitioner was also asked to appear before the Collector- respondent No. 2 in that regard. The petitioner filed his reply (P-6), on 10.2.2006 giving all the aforementioned facts and claimed that the property in dispute was in residential area. He had also filed an affidavit dated 5.5.2006. After hearing the petitioner, the Collector-respondent No. 2 opined that the market value of the house in question was Rs. 26,000/- per square yard and directed the petitioner to affix the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 4,75,960/- (P-8). The operative para of the order passed by the Collector- respondent No. 2 reads as under :- "I have perused the written statement filed by the vendee and the evidence led by both the parties. In addition to this, I myself inspected the spot of the disputed property on 17.6.2006. In the Sale Deed, the vendor/vendee have got the registration of a house and the covered area has been shown as 290 square feet, whereas, at the spot there is a show-room constructed and over here business of cement etc. is carried out. On the ground floor, the covered area is about 2200 square feet and on the first floor of 1500 square feet. The vendee has got this deed registered for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs @ Rs. 2000/- per square yard for residential premises, whereas, this area is a commercial area and on the old G.T.Road, in the centre of the city near Kalandari Gate, the prevalent rate is of Rs. 26,000/- per square yard. At the spot, on enquiry from the persons, the market value is Rs. 30,000/- - 35,000/- per square yard. Keeping in view these facts and accepting the report of Sub- Registrar, Karnal, I accept the prevalent rate of the above shop as Rs. 26,000/- per square yard and the rate of covered area as Rs. 350/- per square feet and had directed the recovery of the balance stamp duty from the vendee on the amount of Rs. 59,49,500/- as Rs. 4,75,960/-. The vendee is directed to deposit the above balance amount of stamp duty within 30 days in the State Treasury. A copy of this order is sent to the Tehsildar, Karnal with the direction to recover the above deficient stamp duty."
(3.) ON further appeal by the petitioner under Section 47A (4) of the Stamp Act, the order passed by the collector-respondent No. 2 has been upheld and the demand of the aforementioned amount has been confirmed. The Commissioner in his order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-10) has fortified and supplemented the reasons given by the Collector-respondent No. 2 by observing as under :- "After hearing arguments from both the sides and perusing through the relevant record brought on the file, I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that a reference under Section 47 of Indian Stamp Act can only be made immediately after registration of documents or within a period of 8 days. As per provisions of sub-section (3) Section 47 of Indian Stamp Act under which this case has been dealt with, it has been clearly provided that the Collector may suo motu or on receipt of reference from the Registrar of the District in whose jurisdiction property is situated, shall within three years from the date of instrument not already referred to him under Sub- section 1, call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself about the correctness of its value or consideration amount and the stamp duty payable thereon and he may determine the value or consideration amount or stamp duty in accordance with procedure laid down under Sub-section 2 of Section 47 of the said Act. Accordingly, the appellant was served with notice by the Collector on receipt of reference from the Sub- Registrar on 19.12.2005 and reference from Registrar /Deputy Commissioner dated 21.12.2005 on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Parmod Kumar, who had addressed the complaint to Sub-Registrar as well as Registrar/D.C. Karnal. Apparently, there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the reference sent to the Collector is not within stipulated period and accordingly the citations referred to by the counsel for the appellant in this regard are not relevant in this case since the same relate to Sub-section 1 of Section 47-A of the said Act which is not the case in hand. Regarding details of the property and factual position at site, I agree with the counsel for the State that the appellant has concealed intentionally details of the property through the impugned sale-deed in which covered area has been shown much less than the area constructed at site. The present site about which the sale deed has been executed relates to the construction of showroom which is in the shape of commercial establishment and it has little semblance with the conveyance deed executed by the Rehabilitation Department in favour, of the father of the appellant for consideration amount of Rs. 9478/- only pertaining to a residential house located on the area of 248 sq. yards. In fact, as per prevailing practice, if and when any conveyance deed is executed by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of any displaced person, the cost is invariably the symbolic cost fixed many years back when the concerned party had actually applied for purchasing the evacuee property but due to prolonged litigation, the sale deed of the same could not be executed immediately in favour of the concerned party. This is exactly similar case in which the conveyance deed has been executed by the Rehabilitation Department, in October, 2005 in favour of the father of the appellant, who wanted to purchase the land long back but due to various reasons including litigation etc. he got the sale deed executed finally on 10.10.2005. The appellant cannot take undue advantage of this benevolent allotment made by the Rehabilitation Department to the family due to their displacement from West Pakistan. In fact since the appellant is purchasing the suit property from his father through sale deed, the guiding principle has to be that he has to pay stamp duty at the prevailing market price of the property. Regarding the point of prior intimation about the site inspection by the Collector, a close look on the zimni orders on the lower court file, reveals that as per zimni order dated 15.6.2006, the counsel for the appellant was present in the court and he was informed that the inspection would be done on 17.6.2006 and thus prior information was given by the Collector to the appellant about the spot inspection. In view of the facts cited and observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. ;