M. BILAL KHAN, J. - The background in which this Constitutional petition arises is that the petitioner had purchased land measuring four kanals comprising Khasra No. 2885/1, Khewat No. 25, Khatoni No. 723, situate at Mauza Bhekewal, four kanals from Khewat No. 270, Khatoni No. 1117, Khasra No. 845/1, and nine kanals, one maria from Khewat No. 364, Khatoni No. 1506, Khasra No. 840, situate at Mauza Charar, Lahore Cantt., Lahore for a consideration of Rs. 9,500/- from one Mst. Aziza Khatoon daughter of Nabi Bakhsh wife of Shamas-ul-Zaman and an agreement to sell had been executed on 21.6.1965; an amount of Rs. 1,500/- had' been paid on the said date, whereas another amount of Rs. 1,500/- had been paid to the vendor on 11.7.1965 and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed; when the vendor had delayed execution of the sale- deed without any lawful excuse, the petitioner had been compelled to approach the Civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance on 13.12.1965, which ultimately had been decreed in favour of the petitioner on 30.7.1974; first appeal filed by Mst. Aziza Khatoon had been dismissed on 21.9.1976, and her Second Appeal before this Court had also met with the same fate on 19.1.2001 and finally on dismissal of her petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 29.6.2004, the decree passed in favour of the petitioner had attained finality, after dismissal of R.S.A., the petitioner had asked Mst. Aziza Khatoon/Shoukat Ara (her only legal representative) for the execution of the sale- deed, but she had refused to do so, whereupon the petitioner had filed an execution petition in the Civil Court; the learned Civil Judge after observing all legal formal sties had approved the draft on the sale-deed and had ultimately appointed a local commission to get the sale-deed executed in accordance with law; when the sale-deed was presented before the Cantonment Executive Officer, Walton Cantonment, Lahore (the respondent), he vide letter No. WC/T/256/4338, dated 21.6.2005 had asked the petitioner to pay the TIP (Transfer of immovable property) tax at current market rate to enable the said office to proceed further in the matter. This is the letter, which has been impugned by the petitioner through the instant petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed most humbly and respectfully that an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent to the effect letter bearing No. WC/T/256/4338, dated 21st June, 2005 issued by the respondent to have been issued illegally, unlawfully without jurisdiction and thus without lawful authority and thus of no legal effect over the valuable rights of the petitioner with a direction to the respondent to honour the agreement of sale and the decrees of the specific performance of the said agreement passed by the Civil Court and maintained upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and entertain and accept the sale- deed executed as per value of the property in dispute as mentioned in the decree passed by the Civil Court i. e. 9,500/- and be restrained for ever from claiming stamp duty over and above the value of the property contained in the agreement of sale of 21.6.1965 and the decree passed by the Civil Court."
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record appended with this petition.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction in the instant case to vary the value fixed in the sale-deed, which is being executed under the decree of the Court, more particularly when the decree stands upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has substance. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the cases of Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar, etc. (N.L.R. 1994 Civil 482), Abdul Sattar v. Province of the Punjab through Registrar/Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and another (1995 C.L.C. 187), Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Messrs Marhaba Dawakhana Regd., Lahore and another (1999 C.L.C. 450- DB) and an unreported judgment dated 18.6.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 774 of 2008 by my learned brother Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, J. In the case of Muhammad Aslam (supra), similar situation as in this case had arisen and this Court while allowing the writ petition had directed the authorities concerned to register the document In accordance with law on the payment of ad valorem stamp duty according to the value of the property mentioned in the document itself, In the other case of Abdul Sattar (supra), additional stamp duty on the sale-deed registered on the basis of a decree passed by the Civil Court had been charged, which was deposited under protest and a challenge thereto had been made by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, In the said case, this Court while allowing the'
Constitutional petition had directed the authorities concerned to refund the amount, which had been received as additional stamp duty. In the case of Messrs Marhaba Dawakhana (supra), in almost identical circumstances, an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had observed as under:- "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.''
Lastly, in the unreported judgment mentioned hereinabove, wherein a decree had been passed in a suit for specific performance of contract, my learned brother had held as under:- "The agreement was made between the parties to the sale-deed in the year 1997. The consideration was settled at Rs. 3,75,000/- of 1/4 of the suit land which was agreed to be sold to the petitioner. Somehow or the other the suit remained pending till the year 2005 when it was decreed on 17.2.2005. The sale-deed was executed by the Executing Court in terms of the said decree, In the said circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are tantamount to modify the decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, which is beyond their jurisdiction as held in the said case of Abdul Sattar. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and void and are set aside. The respondents shall accordingly proceed to register the said sale-deed executed by the Executing Court on payment of registration fee, etc."
The case of Additional Executive Officer, Cantonment Board Walton Cantt., Lahore v. Mrs. Nargis Moeen and others (2006 S.C M.R. 1599) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent proceeds on entirely distinguishable facts, It no doubt acknowledges the authority of the respondent to impose transfer tax as per market value, but the present case has its own peculiar features. Herein, decree upheld upto the Hon'ble apex Court has been sought to be implemented.
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case as also the law laid down in the afore- cited judgments, I have no other option but to direct that the judgment and decree upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan be implemented both in its letter and spirit.
5. Resultantly, I allow this petition and declare that the impugned letter dated 21.6.2005 of Cantonment Executive Officer containing demand of transfer of immovable property tax at current market rate to enable the said office to proceed further in the matter, to have been issued without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
The respondent is accordingly directed to charge the transfer of immovable property tax from the petitioner as per contents of the sale-deed presented by the Court official at the instance of the executing Court. There will be no order as to costs.