Nripti Bhalla And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS




    
   

   Date of Decision: 11.02.2019 Nripati Bhalla and others .....Appellants versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents  !  "  #
$
#

%
  #
    "  #


 
%  Present :

Mr. Pankaj Kundra, Advocate, for the appellants. **** $
#

%
  #
 &'(  This intra)court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the Collector, Panchkula, adjudicating deficiency in stamp duty and registration charges as also the Appellate order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, dismissing the appeal.

2.

Facts in brief required to be noticed for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy are as under:) Plot No. 289, Phase)II, Industrial Area, Panchkula, area around 1000 sq. yards was allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to one Jitender Kumar Sangri and Ajay Kumar Sangri on free hold basis. They entered into an agreement to sell the said plot to the appellants) petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 84 lacs. The appellants)petitioners executed a General Power of Attorney dated 10.11.2009 appointing one Akshay Bhalla (son of appellant No.1) as GPA holder authorizing him to deal with all the matters pertaining to the said plot including the power to sell and transfer etc. After completion of the requisite formalities and

2 permission from the HUDA, a sale deed is said to have been registered on 26.04.2013. The appellants were required to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the rates prevalent at the time of registration of the sale deed and accordingly vide order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the Collector, Panchkula, a demand was raised which was challenged by way of appeal which was also dismissed.

3.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the valuation of the instrument for the purposes of payment of stamp duty is to be determined on the basis of the market value of the property prevailing when the document was tendered for registration. 4.

Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the case of
   

      

 ! "" #$ contends that the value of the property in question for the purposes of stamp duty and registration charges is to be determined as set out in the agreement to sell and not on the date of registration of the sale deed.

5.

We are afraid that this argument is based on totally misreading of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
 



   (supra). In the said case, the issue was in respect of applicability of Article 23 of the Stamp Act for levy of duty on market value of land under Section 47)A of the Stamp Act in case of assignment of leasehold rights of property merely for enjoyment and not transfer of ownership by sale. It was a case where the parties entered into an agreement for transfer of lease hold plots by assignment. In the aforesaid facts it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that since the demised land is merely assignment of leased property for enjoyment and not transfer of ownership by sale, Article 23 of the Stamp Act does not stand attracted and thus

3 Section 47)A of the Stamp Act is not applicable as the same applies to a outright sale.

6.

The case in hand being clearly distinguishable on facts, the ratio of the said judgment is not at all applicable. On the contrary in the case of   %    
& '( ()



#  ! "" **  it has been held that in case where there is sufficient time gap between the agreement to sell and presentation of instrument for registration, the valuation shall be assessed on the market rate prevalent at the time of registration of sale deed and not when the parties entered into an agreement to sell. It may be relevant to extract the following from the said report:)



       



   

         

                          

                 

 



       



    

   

   

 

            

  

    
 



        

 



  

      



 

                       

  

          !   "


 

    # $%&&' !()(* 

         



  

                                             + 

  

            

           

                        

             

    

                 

       

             

 ,     

       

              

                   -   %. 

               

      

 

4
 


       # $ %&&' ! ()(*   -  /     !   "

   

  

  01  2           "

   

  

3    - /            ,          -  /     !  "

      
                -  /    

     4  5   

      ,"

   



              

    

          

        

      

   "

               ,     -   

  6      

 7.

The same view has been reaffirmed in the case of    +,    
 %&-.

!""*/ In view of the settled proposition of law by pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove, we find no illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and holding that the stamp duty was liable to be determined and paid on the market rate prevailing at the time of presentation of the conveyance deed for registration.

8.

The intra court appeal is thus devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.



 






  




















  
 











 



 !



Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No