Collector of Stamps/Sdm v. Raman Kumar

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 26, 2017 bs

(Corrected and released on 25th November, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th October, 2017 + CM(M) 69/2016 & CM No.2405/2016 (for stay) COLLECTOR OF STAMPS/SDM ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv. for Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Adv. Versus RAMAN KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.S. Rana, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 12th October, 2017, the following order was passed: "1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment (dated 4th July, 2015 in MCA No.08/14 of the Court of Additional District Judge-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended for the State of Delhi. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. The position which emerges from hearing counsels, is as under:- (i) that on 29th December, 2006, an Agreement to Sell with respect to property no. GC-11, Second Floor, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi – 110 027 was registered by the owner thereof in favour of Anita Sharma wife of the respondent and since at the time of Agreement to Sell possession of the property was delivered to the purchaser in part performance of the Agreement to Sell, in accordance with Article 23A of the Schedule to the Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi, out of 6% Stamp Duty leviable on a conveyance, Stamp Duty of 5.7% was paid on the agreement to sell accompanied with delivery of possession in part performance; (ii) on 4th March, 2010, a Sale Deed of the same property was presented for registration, by the owner thereof, in favour of, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent and according to the counsel for the respondent, the aforesaid Anita Sharma only (the counsel for the petitioner states that he is presuming the Sale Deed to be in favour of the respondent because it was the respondent who preferred the appeal); (iii) the said Conveyance Deed / Sale Deed on 23rd March, 2010 was impounded by the Sub Registrar to whom it was presented and sent to the Collector of Stamps, Delhi; (iv) the Collector of Stamps, Delhi, though issued show cause notice to the parties on 27th July, 2010 and to which a reply was filed, but no speaking order was passed and the Collector of Stamps, Delhi on 10th November, 2010 merely prepared a challan for deficient Stamp Duty and penalty thereon; (v) according to the Collector of Stamps, Delhi, the Stamp Duty payable on the Conveyance Deed / Sale Deed ought to have been in accordance with the circle rates prevalent on 4th March, 2010 and not as per the circle rates prevalent in December, 2006; and, (vi) the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 47A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi to the District Court and the learned Additional District Judge has vide the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and held the Stamp Duty payable on the Sale Deed to be only the remaining 0.3% Stamp Duty of what was left after paying the Stamp Duty on the Agreement to Sell i.e. as per the circle rates prevalent in December, 2006. 5. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the Sub Registrar, of impounding the Conveyance Deed / Sale Deed presented on 4th March, 2010 and sending it to the Collector of Stamps, Delhi was in exercise of powers under Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act which is as under:- "33. Examination and impounding of instruments. — (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a pubic office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same." and the remedy thereagainst is as provided under Section 56 of the Act which is as under:- "56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Con