Dismissed

(O&M)Hy.State v. Pawan Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2013CR/4699/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State filed a civil revision to set aside an order of the District Judge, Panipat, which allowed an appeal under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The State argued the District Judge lacked jurisdiction post the Haryana Amendment Act 21 of 1997. The court held the objection untenable as the amendment did not apply retrospectively to appeals disposed of before 2000.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision filed by the State was dismissed, maintaining the order of the District Judge.

(O&M)Hy.State Vs Pawan Kumar — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.4699 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:15.07.2013

¶3

State of Haryana through Collector, Panipat

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Pawan Kumar son of Prem Chand son of Baru Mal, resident of House No.374-L, Model Town, Panipat.

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner.

¶10

None for the respondent.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

¶15

K.Kannan, J.

¶16

The revision is by the State challenging the order passed

¶17

by the District Judge, Panipat, disposing of the appeal filed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The State had demanded additional stamp duty as payable for a transaction of sale obtained by the private respondent on 17.11.1993. By the first impugned notice, the Collector had demanded additional stamp duty as leviable for the transaction of sale on the basis that the property was worth

¶18

Civil Revision No.4699 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

3,50,000/- per killa, while the document had been registered @ 1,98,000/-. Against the assessment made by the Collector in appeal filed by the private respondent, the District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector, Panipat. He found that there was no scope for enhancement of the value of the building and for collection of stamp duty. It is against this order of the District Judge that the civil revision has been filed.

¶20

Before me the only argument which is made by the counsel for the State was that in terms of the State amendment of the Stamp Act, the competent officer before whom the appeal could have been filed was only the Commissioner of the division and the District Judge did not have a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at all. In fact I find such an objection had not been taken before the District Judge before whom the case was disposed of. However, even such an objection, I find is not tenable, for, the first amendment which was made under Section 47-A by Act 37 of 1973 did not make any change to the Central enactment as regards the authority before whom the appeal could have been preferred. A State amendment was made substituting the office of the District Judge to the Commissioner of the division as it occurred in Section 47-A(4) through the Haryana Amendment Act 21 of 1997. The appeal had been disposed of by the District Judge on 20.12.1996 that was even before the Amendment Act 1997. Consequently, it has to be only

¶21

Civil Revision No.4699 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

held that it was only the District Judge, who was competent to hear and dispose of the appeal under Section 47-A(4) of the Stamp Act. The objection regarding the competency of the Court to dispose of the appeal was, therefore, not tenable at all. The order passed already is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed.

¶23

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.07.2013 sanjeev

(O&M)Hy.State v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Hy.State v. Pawan Kumar

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

Ajay Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Kumari Veena and Anr.

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Amolak Ram

Jamait Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Excise & Taxation Ministries Vs State of Haryana (Decided Case)

Maktul Singh Vs State of Haryana

K C Goyal Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority