2002 PLP 226 (CLC)

3. The sale‑deed was presented to the respondent for the registration. The respondent vide memo. No.HRC/20277, dated 20‑10‑1992 has informed that the Stamp Duty on the said sale‑deed is payable after calculating the value of the property as notified by the respondent and not on the value as fixed by the parties or determined in decree passed in suit for specific performance of the contract and the petitioner was directed to pay revised additional stamp duty after calculating the value of the property under the agreement to sell according to the rates fixed and notified by the respondent/Collector.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondent for non‑registration of sale‑deed on the stamp duty is illegal and unlawful. The respondent was bound to execute the sale‑deed as the Civil Court has passed the decree/judgment. It has been held that the agreement to sell was executed in 1964 and the total consideration amount for the abovesaid property was Rs.87,

000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the stamp duty leviable at Rs.87,000 was rightly fixed, and the petitioner could not be forced to pay additional stamp duty as the Collector was bound to accept the decree. It has further been contended that the Notification of the respondent by which payable stamp duty has been provided and the value of the property has been fixed for the purpose of registration is not duly notified in the Official Gazette, hence has got no value and it cannot be said that the Notification has been issued under section 27‑A of Stamp Act, 1899. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities: 1999 CLC 450, 1995 CLC 674, 1995 CLC 187, 1993 CLC 2073.

5. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has opposed the acceptance of the writ petition on the ground that the Notification has been issued by the Collector as is required under section 27‑A of Stamp Duty Act. Hence, demand of the Collector for payment of additional stamp duty has been correctly made and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. Admittedly the agreement was executed on 24th June, 1964 between the petitioner and late Syeda Fakhra Sultana Begum for a consideration of Rs.87,

000. The Civil Court vide judgment and decree accepted the agreement to sell as has been executed at the relevant time between the parties and the sale price was fixed at Rs.87,

000. During the execution proceedings the learned Civil Judge rightly directed for registration .of the sale‑deed and it was presented after calculating the Stamp Duty on the basis. of which sale price was fixed at Rs.87,

000. The Collector on the basis of Notification issued decree by which the value of the property has been mentioned and claimed additional stamp duty. The similar type of propositions came before this Court and resolved in Province of Punjab v. Messrs Marhaba Dawakhana Regd., Lahore and another R.F.A. No.107 of 1998. The relevant portion of the abovesaid judgment is reproduced as under:‑‑ "

11. One of the important aspects of the case is that the agreement of sale containing terms and conditions of sale was subject -matter of the suit for specific performance in which the decree was passed by the Court, thereby holding the respondent entitled to the sale of land on payment of Rs.32 lacs as sale price. The sale price agreed by the parties with their mutual consent, keeping in view, the prevailing rates on the date of agreement, had also the blessing of the decree of the Court wherein the right to seek transfer on the payment of the sale price mentioned in the agreement was recognized. The Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the Court or to dictate his own terms or to direct the parties to pay the stamp duty on self‑inflated rates calculated on imaginary basis. The valuation table issued by the Collector having no legal sanctity, the Sub‑Registrar was duty bound to honour the decree and to register the sale‑deed on the terms as certified by the Court itself. The order requiring the respondent to pay the additional stamp duty and also to bear the liability of additional Corporation fee was palpably wrong and without jurisdiction. " The similar view has been taken in case of Muhammad Aslam v. Sub -Registrar and others reported in 1995 CLC 674 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "Valuation table and rates fixed in said valuation table regarding value of properties having not been notified as per requirement of section 27‑A, Stamp Act, 1899 were without lawful authority and of no legal effect with law on payment of ad valorem stamp duty according to the value of property mentioned in the document itself. " The relevant portion of the judgment titled as Abdul Sattar v. Province of the Punjab reported in 1995 CLC 187 is reproduced as under:‑‑ "

8. The question which arises for determination a whether the respondents were justified to direct the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The reply is in negative because the respondents while demanding the payment of additional stamp duty did not keep in mind that this section came into force on 14‑6‑1986 and was not given, retrospective effect, therefore could not have been made applicable to a transaction pertaining to 1981. This is not all. The respondents have not placed on record any notification issued by the respondent No. 1 under section 27‑A of the Stamp Act." In 1993 CLC 2073 this Court has held the same view.

7. From the bare perusal of the abovesaid case‑laws it has become crystal clear that the valuation is not duly notified and has not been published in the Official Gazette and it has rightly been held to have no legal effect. The Notification can only be taken as having legal effect if it has duly been published in the Official Gazette. Due to this reason the Notification cannot be accepted under section 27‑A of the Stamp Duty Act. The second important aspect of this case is that the parties mutually agreed the valuation of the property as Rs.87,

000. This fact has been proved during the pendency of the civil suit and the learned Civil Judge held that the value of the property at the time of sale of the same was Rs.87,

000. This fact has been affirmed up to the level of august Supreme Court. The Sub‑Registrar was not competent to ignore that decree of the Court or to dictate his own terms and could not direct the party to pay additional stamp duty on the self‑inflated rates calculated on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the demand of the Collector in view of the abovesaid case‑law is declared as illegal and he is directed to register the sale‑deed as has been prepared after calculating total consideration of Rs.87,000, the amount of the property on which it is being sold through sale‑deed in question. The demand of the Registrar is set aside having no legal effect. Resultantly this writ petition is accepted. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑820/L Petition allowed.