Dismissed

State of Pb. v. Smt. Poonam Arora

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2009CR/2422/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court held that a surveyor/collector could not disregard the agreed sale consideration in a stamp duty valuation. The court ruled that valuation must rely on the agreement terms from 1987 rather than later market rates without evidence of under-valuation, quashing the Collector's order.

What did the court decide?

The revision filed by the petitioner under Section 115 CPC was dismissed as there was no merit in the challenge to the Collector's order.

State of Pb. Vs Smt. Poonam Arora — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 2422 of 1995 Date of Decision : August 13, 2009

¶3

Punjab State through the Collector, Jalandhar,

....Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Poonam Arora

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioner.

¶10

None for the respondent.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶12

Vide order dated 10.3.1993, learned Collector, Jalandhar while acting under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1982 held that the value of property No. 668, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar was Rs. 24,500/per marla and directed the respondent to pay a stamp duty on an amount of Rs.1,89,900/- after deducting the stamp duty already deposited. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 8.11.1994 vide which the order passed by the learned Collector was quashed. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision was filed by the Punjab State through the Collector, Jalandhar under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶13

According to the respondent, she had purchased the

¶14

Civil Revision No. 2422 of 1995 -2-

¶15

property in question on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.7.1987 as per which the property was agreed to be sold for a total sum of Rs.35,000/-. The agreement was executed by Baldev Raj Negi in favour of Kewal Krishan Arora and as per the agreement, the latter was at liberty to get the sale deed executed in his name or in the name of his nominee. Baldev Raj Negi also executed a power of attorney in favour of Kewal Krishan Arora. On the basis of the same, the sale deed was executed by Kewal Krishan Arora in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs.35,000/- only and there was specific mention in the instrument of sale that the vendee had paid Rs.35,000/- to the vendor in accordance with the agreement to sell dated 29.7.1987.

¶16

According to the petitioner, an enquiry was got conducted so as to determine the correct value of the property. The area was found to be in the heart of the city. It was a developed locality with all modern facilities. Though the vendee had taken possession in 1987 yet she undertook the construction at her own expenses. The prevailing cost of such like land in J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar was about Rs. 30,000/- per marla but keeping in view the fact that possession had been taken by the vendee and the location of the house, learned Collector held that the value of the property was Rs.24,000/- per marla and, therefore, stamp duty be affixed on an amount of Rs.1,89,900/- and not just on Rs.35,000/-.

¶17

There is no denial of the fact that the agreement to sell was

¶18

Civil Revision No. 2422 of 1995 -3-

¶19

executed in the month of July, 1987 for a sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-. This is clear from the fact that the learned Collector in his order dated 10.3.1993 mentioned that the vendee had taken the possession of the plot in 1987. Under these circumstances, learned Collector was not justified in discarding the agreement, especially its terms regarding the valuation of the plot. Therefore, the valuation of the plot was to be assessed as per the prevailing market rate in the year 1987 and not when the sale deed was executed in 1992.

¶20

There is no material available on the file from which it could be made out regarding the nature of the enquiry held by the learned Collector regarding assessment of valuation of the plot. No specific sale transaction had been referred to so as to conclude that there was under-valuation in the price of the plot in question.

¶21

In view of the above, learned lower appellate Court, while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent, rightly held that the order passed by the Collector was in clear derogation of requirements of Section 47-A of the Act.

¶22

Resultantly, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE

¶24

August 13, 2009 satish

State of Pb. v. Smt. Poonam Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Pb. v. Smt. Poonam Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.

Kishan Lal & Ors. Vs Surya Kant Saini & Anr.

Jagdish and Anr. Vs Tek Ram and Ors.

Chet Ram and Ors. Vs Tulla

Tejinder Singh Vs Chander Kant and Ors.

Bant Singh etc. Vs Kirpal Singh etc.