.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- On 29.6.2000 the . Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against one Malik Muhammad Riaz. According to the contents of the plaint, he agreed to transfer the suit property to the.Petitioner. For a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. The suit remained Pending. It appears that the said Malik Muhammad Riaz died and his LRs were brought on record. The said LRs entered into a compromise with the petitioner which was recorded on 6.5.2004 and the suit was decreed as prayed for. Pursuant to the said decree, a sale-deed was executed by the said LRs of the said Malik Muhammad Riaz deceased and the same was presented for registration vide receipt dated 3.11.2004. The consideration was mentioned as Rs. 40,00,000/- and a stamp duty of Rs 80,000/- was paid.
2. The grievance being made out in this wr petition filed in this Court on 4.1.2005.Is that the respondent are not registering the said document and are insisting 'that the petitioner should pay -Court-fee according to the current valuation list issued under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.
3. The writ petition was admitted to hearing on 11.1.2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the ,cases of Province of Punjab through. Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, etc. v. M/s.- Marhaba Dawakhana, etc. (PLJ 1999 Lahore 171 (DB), Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suleman Khan v. D.G./Registrar, Lahore District (2002 CLC 226) and Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar and others (1995 CLC 674) that the sale-deed has been executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the respondents cannot insist upon payment of stamp duty in terms of Section 27-A of the Stamp. Act, 1899. Learned AAG with reference to the comments filed by the respondent is: of the opinion that the stamp. Duty is payable in accordance with the current Evaluation list. . counsel are squarely attracted' It has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the said case of Province of Punjab v. M/s. Marhaba Dawakhana that the Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the Court or to direct parties to pay stamp duty on self inflated rates. It was also observed that the valuation tables issued by the Collectors have no legal basis or sanctity. This judgment in fact confirms the earlier view of this Court in the said case of Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar while these judgments were followed in the said case of Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suleman Khan. In view of the law clearly laid down in the said judgments, the respondents have no lawful authority to call upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The respondents are bound by the terms of the decree and the sale-deed which has been executed in accordance with the terms thereof and otherwise bears proper stamp duty shall be registered by them, of course, on payment of other requisite charges like registration fee. No orders as to costs.