' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Dr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhry, petitioner No,1, is the father of Dr. Zafar Iqbal, petitioner No,2. Vide gift deed dated 1-3-1994, the father gifted 9 Kanals of land to his son, petitioner No,2. The gift deed was inscribed on stamp paper worth Rs,35,640. The stamp duty was calculated by the petitioners on the basis of Exh.P.1, which is a document dated 25-5-1991, setting out the schedule of rates issued by the District Collector for the purpose of calculating stamp duty on documents. The respondents assert that this document (Exh.P.1) is a notification under section 27A of the Stamp Act.
2. When the gift deed was presented before the competent Sub-Registrar for registration, he refused to register the same on the ground that it had been undervalued and the stamp duty was, therefore, deficient. He then made a report to the District Collector to this effect and also recommended that, apart from the deficiency in the stamp duty, the petitioner was also liable to pay the penalty amounting to ten times of the deficient duty. The District Collector, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, passed an order dated 12-12-1984 in accordance with the recommendation of the Sub-Registrar.
3. The petitioners filed a suit to assail the order dated 12-12-1994 mainly on two grounds. Firstly it was contended that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice and, secondly, that it was not in accordance with the law which merely required the petitioners to stamp the gift deed as per schedule of rates given in the notification (Exh.P.1) dated 25-5-1991. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the District Collector based the calculation of stamp duty on the gift deed on the report of the Sub-Registrar (Exh.P.2) dated 7-12-1994.
4. The learned Courts below have accepted the plea of the petitioners that the order of the District Collector dated 12-12-1994 was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing had been given to them. However, it has been held by the Courts below that the petitioners are liable to pay deficient stamp duty as calculated by the Sub-Registrar vide Exh.P.2 and as ordered by the District Collector on 12-12-1994.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners , is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court dated 23-4-2005 and the learned appellate Court dated 29-11-2005. It is argued by him that both learned Court below fell in error by relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar (Exh.P.2). It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gift deed, in any event, was stamped in accordance with the schedule (Exh.P.1) dated 25-5-1991.
6. I have examined the record at some length, with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Law Officer. It appears that no notification, as envisaged under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, is available on record. I may add at this stage that there is the above referred document, which has been exhibited on record as Exh.P.1 and also as Exh.D.4. This document is not a notification. There is appended with Exh.D.4 one additional page bearing the heading "tijarti araziat". This additional page appears to have been signed by the Tehsildar; the Assistant Commissioner, Okara, and the District Collector, Okara. This document also does not appear to be a notification.
7. On the last date of hearing, the learned Law Officer and learned counsel for the petitioners were allowed time to lay hands on the notification, if any, which may have been issued under section 27- A of the Stamp Act at the relevant time i.e, 1-3-1994 when the gift deed in question was executed.
The learned Law Officer has not been able to bring on record any such notification preceding the date of the gift. Furthermore, the departmental representative, present with the relevant record, has also not been able to show any notification to the Court, which may have been issued as per terms of section 27-A aforesaid.
8. It is, by now, well-settled that the notification, envisaged under section 27-A, had to be duly publicized through various means, including publication in the official Gazette. If any authority for this purpose is required, reference may be made to the case titled Province of Punjab, through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore and others v. M/s Marhaba Dawakhana and others (1999 CLC 450) and the case titled Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suleman Khan v. D.C./Registrar, Lahore District (2002 CLC 226).
9. The learned Law Officer, however, stated that this was not one of the grounds urged before the learned Court below on behalf of the petitioners. This may be so. However, a point of law can be taken up at any time and there is ample power vested in the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. To pass any order which, in the circumstances of a case, is required by law.
10. In view of the above circumstances, I am not left in any doubt that there was no valid notification issued under section 27-A of the Stamp Act when the gift deed dated 1-3-1994 was executed. In the circumstances, the valuation table relied on the by the Sub-Registrar (Exh.P.1 and Exh.D.4) did not constitute a notification under section 27-A, as has been held in the precedents cited above.
11. In this view of the matter, the impugned decrees of the learned trial Court dated 23-4-2005 and of the learned appellate Court dated 29-11-2005 are set aside, being contrary to law. As a result, the suit of the petitioners is decreed and the respondents are directed to register the gift deed dated 1-3-1994. This should be done within thirty days from today.