Partly allowed

Smt Satyawati Badoni v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC28 Jul 2017WPMS/882/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the High Court upheld the deficiency in stamp duty but quashed the penalty and registration fee, citing Allahabad High Court judgments that render such penalties impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the penalty of Rs. 9,000 and the deficiency in registration fee of Rs. 3,000; upheld the stamp duty deficiency of Rs. 45,700.

Smt Satyawati Badoni Vs State and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 882 of 2006 (M/S)

¶3

Smt. Satyawati Badoni …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents.

¶4

Present:

¶5

Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶6

Dated: 28^th July, 2017

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Devang Dobhal, the leaned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the orders dated 8^th November, 2005, 21^st April, 2006 and 26^th June, 2006, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Dehradun as well as the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp at Dehradun, in the proceedings which was arisen under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

¶10

The basis of the proceedings has been that the petitioner contends that one Smt. Vimla Kothiyal, the owner of the property, agreed to sell the property to Smt. Satyawati Badoni, by virtue of a registered agreement for sale executed on 10^th July, 1989. At that time, the sale consideration which was agreed inter se between the parties was Rs. 1 lac. On account of her inability to be present for the purposes of the execution of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, she executed a registered attorney in favour of Anand Mohan Badoni on 8^th January, 1990. This power of attorney is not a subject matter of controversy and since the executor of attorney himself admits that document, she has conveyed all rights which were mentioned in the attorney to Anand Mohan Badoni, which included the right to get the sale deed executed.

¶11

¶12

Consequently, the sale deed was executed by the attorney holder of Vimla Kothiyal in favour of the petitioner on 22^nd March, 2005.

¶13

A notice was issued to her on 06.06.2005, wherein, the Stamp Authorities observed that the sale deed executed on 22^nd March, 2005, by Anand Mohan Badoni was deficiently stamped and, thus, the notices were issued soliciting his reply to its content as it called upon the petitioner to supply reasons as to why the sale deed was insufficiently stamped. The Sub Registrar, after the receipt of the objection, filed by the petitioner, referred the matter to the Additional District Magistrate stating that there is deficiency of Rs. 45,700/-. Apart from that, the Assistant Commissioner also felt that there happens to be a deficiency of registration fee to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and he simultaneously imposed a penalty of Rs.9,000/- while exercising power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

¶14

In the proceedings, thus, initiated under Section 47-A of the Act, as per the Section 47-A, there is no provision for penalty or could be levied if the deed of conveyancing is insufficiently stamped.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deficiency as calculated by the respondent is on the basis of the fact that the time period engulfed between date of agreement of sale and till the date of execution of the registration of the sale deed, the said period cannot be taken as to be delayed period for calculating the deficiency because the petitioner was bonafidely ailing and she was not in a position to get sale deed executed at the appropriate time.

¶16

Be that as it may. Under Section 47-A, it contemplates that the stamp duty which a person is liable to pay would be stamped duty as prevailing on the date when the sale deed is

¶17

¶18

being executed. Thus, the computation of the same would never be relegated back to the date from which the agreement came into existence.

¶19

The reason being that, if this is accepted, the stamp duty is calculated from the date of the registration of the agreement for sale, it would be chaotic.

¶20

The reason of ailment for getting the sale deed executed as extended before the Court below as well before the Court by the petitioner is not acceptable, the reason being that the intervening time period is so disproportionate to any disease, this reason does not sound to be justified for replying the notice given under Section 47-A by the Sub Registrar, besides this, nature of disease has also not been disclosed by petitioner.

¶21

Thus, on the aforesaid basis, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), while considering the Case No. 9 of 2005-2006, subsequently assigned as Case No. 17 of 2005-2006, Smt. Satyawati Badoni Vs. State has recorded the findings that the sale deed dated 22^nd March, 2005, was deficiently stamped to the tune of Rs.45,700/-. But being the revenue authority entrusted with the responsibility of registering the deed of conveyancing, it was expected that the authority computing the deficiency must be conscious of the fact in view of the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court to the effect that since Section 47 of the Act do not contemplate or grant a right for imposing of penalty which has been affirmed by the judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1986 All. 107, Kake Singh Vs The Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Bulandshahr and another and subsequently since it has been affirmed by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the judgment reported in 1998 (1) AWC 403, Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, this

¶22

¶23

Court feels that though there may be discrepancy in calculating the deficiency in the stamp duty as levied on Rs.45,700/because no rationale has been depicted in the impugned order for penalty, but, simultaneously, on the other hand, the imposition of penalty of Rs.9000/- and deficiency in the registration fee of Rs.3,000/-, cannot be justified for the reason that penalty is not permissible by the Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court and, secondly, the deficiency in the registration to the tune of Rs.3,000/- which has been calculated by the respondent is not acceptable because the responsibility of levying the registration fee on the person approaching the Sub Registrar for registering a document is an exclusive prerogative of revenue authority and if they have collected a deficient processing fee, they have to be blamed themselves for this.

¶24

Thus, the calculation made beyond the stamp, towards deficiency, i.e. Rs. 9,000/- and towards the deficiency in registration and penalty of Rs. 3,000/- on the deficient stamp is not tenable in law and, hence, both are quashed. But so far as the deficiency of Rs.45,700/- exclusively only for the stamp duty, the same is upheld.

¶25

The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶26

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

¶27

28.07.2017 Shiv

¶28

Smt Satyawati Badoni v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Satyawati Badoni v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natha Singh Vs the D.J. Rudraprayag and Ors.

Gurumukh Singh Vs State and Ors.

S.K. Srivastava Vs State and Ors.

Dr Dinesh Chandra Joshi Vs Distt Judge Haridwar and Ors.

Shakil and Ors. Vs D.D.C and Ors.

Udai Singh Vs D.J. Tehri Garhwal and Others