' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---This petition assails the orders dated 2-6-2009 and 17-7-2009 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively.
2. The petitioners purchased a commercial property comprising a shop along with roof measuring four Sarsahies and 18 feet situated in "B" Block, Rail Bazar Chowk, Tehsil and District, Okara, for a consideration of Rs,1.5 million. By virtue of its location the shop in question falls in the category of commercial property as per valuation table issued by the District Officer (Revenue) Okara, vide Notification No,HRC/420-28 dated 2-7-2008. The said Notification was issued under section 75 of the Stamp Act, 1899 pursuant to Notification issued by the Government of Punjab bearing No,67- 2004/913-ST(I) dated 20-8-2005 under the Board of Revenue Punjab, Stamps (Yardstick Urban Lands) Rules, 1999. The said rules are still in force.
3. According to the Yardstick/Valuation Table issued by respondent No,1 on 2-7-2008 for District Okara. Rail Bazar Okara, where the shop in question is situated, is a commercial area. The official rate for valuation of a property for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty is Rs,2 million per marla. The property purchased by the petitioners admittedly measures approximately half marla.
Therefore, according to the rate notified by the respondents, a sum of Rs,one million was to be treated as the relevant valuation for the purposes of calculation of stamp duty. However, in order to be on the safe side, the petitioners valued the property as Rs,1.5 million. This was apparently done to include the value of the structure existing on the land, which according to the learned counsel was valued at Rs,500,000. It is worth mentioning that no criterion is prescribed in or under the Stamp Act for calculating value of the structure existing on the land. It is, however, provided that the value of the building or structure stated in the instrument shall, subject to the provisions contained in the Act, be accepted. Accordingly they paid stamp duty in the sum of Rs,30,000 calculated at the rate of two per cent of the declared value of Rs,1.5 million.
4. When the sale-deed was submitted for registration, the Deputy District Officer, Okara (respondent No,2) raised an objection regarding valuation of the property for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. According to him the "actual" value of the shop in question was Rs,3.5 million. It is not clear how and on the basis of which material did respondent No,2 arrive at the figure of Rs,3.5 million. Respondent No,2 therefore demanded payment of stamp duty on the basis of value determined by him. He submitted a report to that effect on 1-6-2009 to respondent No,1 (District Collector). In the said report he also alleged that the petitioners in order to avoid payment of stamp duty had undervalued the property and paid deficient stamp duty thereby causing loss to the Government Exchequer. He recommended that stamp duty be recovered against the "actual" value of Rs,3.5 million, at the rate of two per cent. This came to a sum of Rs,70,000.
5. Respondent No,1 on the basis of afore-said report of respondent No,2, vide order dated 17-7-2009 held that the valuation determined by respondent No,2 was correct and that the petitioners had intentionally undervalued the property. They had attempted to evade payment of deficient stamp duty to cause loss to the Government Exchequer. He not only proceeded to uphold the order of respondent No,2 whereby the value of the property in question was declared as Rs,3.5 million, but also imposed penalty of Rs,40,000 on the petitioners.
6. Both the afore-said orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are challenged in this petition. It is argued that according to section 27(A) of the Stamp Act, 1899, the respondents were required to calculate value of the property with reference to the valuation table notified by the concerned Collector, in respect of land, situated in the area or locality concerned. Section 27(A) of the Act provides that the value of land/building/structure stated in the instrument of sale based upon such valuation table shall be accepted for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. This has not been done which constitutes arbitrary and illegal exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General. A perusal of the order passed by the respondents reveals that the same are neither supported by any reasons nor has any legal basis been disclosed for passing the afore-said orders. The respondents have not referred to any provision of the Stamp Act or the rules framed thereunder to support their order. They have arbitrarily, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner fixed a value without reference L.6 any statutory provision, rule, regulation or notification.
8. Statutory functionaries derive their powers from the Statute. They are creatures of the Statute and are bound to act and exercise only such powers and in such manner as is envisaged by law.
All actions taken and orders passed must be based on the bedrock of law and Statute. There is no room for arbitrary, unbridled, whimsical or capricious exercise of power by State functionaries specially so where rights of citizens are involved. Exercise of jurisdiction must indicate transparency, uniformity and use of objective criteria. Discretion, where not specifically granted can neither be presumed nor exercised. It is precisely for this reason that concepts like right of hearing, audi alteram partem and the need for speaking and reasoned orders etc. Have been emphasized by Superior Courts of our country.
9. In the first place, the orders passed by the respondents ex facie fall short of the basis standards provided in section 24-A of the General Clauses Act which requires public functionaries in exercise of their jurisdiction to pass reasoned orders. Section 24(A) provides as follows:-- 24.A Exercise of power under enactments.---(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the power conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially.
10. In this regard reference may also usefully be made to Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCM R 2268.
11. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned orders that these not only violate the provisions of section 27(A) of the Stamp Act, 1899 but also ignore all notifications issued by the Board of Revenue on the subject including the Punjab Stamps (Yardstick Urban Lands) Rules, 1999. Strangely enough, respondent No,1 has even ignored his own Notification No,HRC/420-28 dated 2-7-2008 through which a valuation table was notified for District Okara.
12. The rules read with section 27(A) of the Stamp Act read with the rules framed thereunder provide that where a valuation table has been notified by the District Registrar and/or Deputy District Officer (Registration), valuation of property declared in an instrument of sale, provided such valuation is in consonance with the notified rates, has to be accepted by the concerned functionaries. There is no discretion vested in them in this regard. They cannot substitute such valuation on the basis of their own discretionary assessment of the market value of the property.
This is clearly not the mandate of the law. Had this been the intention of the legislature, it would have said so in the Statute. Such discretionary power is conspicuous by its absence. Discretionary powers cannot be read into any Statute. Any other interpretation would invariably lead to disastrous results by conferring unbridled discretionary powers on State functionaries which will be exercised with impunity. A well functioning legal system can ill afford the luxury of a carte blanche of this nature.
13. It is evident from a perusal of the afore-said orders passed by the respondents that they determined, "actual value of the shop without making any reference to valuation criteria provided in the law, notification and the valuation table". This, in my opinion, constitutes unlawful, arbitrary and colourable exercise of jurisdiction, not vested in the respondents.
14. Respondent No,1 affixed his stamp of approval on the recommendations of respondent No,2 without due application of mind and recording reasons for the same. He, proceeded one step further by imposing penalty of Rs,40,000 which, in the facts and circumstances of the case was not only illegal but also without jurisdiction.
15. In view of the above, the orders dated 2-6-2009 and 17-7-2009 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. These are accordingly set aside. The valuation of the property in accordance with the valuation table issued by respondent No,1 on 2-7-2008 for District Okara shall be accepted by the respondents for the purposes of calculation of stamp duty in accordance with the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder, including the Punjab Stamp (Yardstick Urban Lands) Rules, 1999. The sale-deed in question shall be registered after fulfilment of necessary legal and procedural formalities and payment of the requisite fees, charges and dues in accordance with law.
16. .
17. A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab, for circulation to all concerned and for strict compliance of the laws on the subject.