' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- Petitioners Nos.1 to 4 entered into an exchange deed dated 31-10-2009 with petitioner No,5 of two properties mentioned in the deed in question whereby the two properties mentioned therein were exchanged inter se by the parties. As per statement given in the deed in question the property bearing No,RH52-BII measures 4, marlas 7, sirsahi and was valued at Rs,3,00,000/- whereas the other property subject-matter of the exchange deed measures 2 marlas, 6 sirsahi and its value has been shown as Rs,2,00,000/-. This exchange deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar Office, Hazro and has been registered. The Sub- Registrar office has refused to deliver back the registered exchange deed to the petitioners on the plea that the stamp duty upon the exchange deed is to be paid in respect of valuation of both the properties. This order dated 31-12-2009 of the said respondent has been assailed by the petitioners through the instant writ petition.
2. Parawise comments were requisitioned which have been submitted.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the document of exchange deed of the properties has been specifically dealt with at Serial No,31 in Schedule I of the Stamp Act, 1899. It is an admitted position that the properties subject-matter of the deed are immovable properties and are situated in urban area mentioned in the deed.
(b) when executed in respect of immovable property in urban area as defined in No.23:Eight rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof of the value of the property of the greatest value.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Punjab Finance Act (No,IX) of 1997 as amended provides the following method of assessment: of the stamp duty to be charged on an exchange deed:
(b) when executed in respect of immovable property in urban area as defined in No,23; ' Eight rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof of the value of the property of the greatest value going the stamp duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported judgment Qaiser Javed Malik v. Pervaiz Hameed and 2 others (2009 SCM R 846) has laid down the following law at page 851 in paragraph No,6 about the interpretation of the statutes:--- "It is settled principle of interpretation that the Courts should adopt an interpretation, which may give meanings of each word of an enactment taking into consideration the spirit of such legislation. An interpretation whereby any portion of an enactment is rendered ineffective is not to be adopted when clear meanings can be given to various provisions of an enactment in a harmonious manner as held by this Court in the cases of. Shahid Nabi Malik and another v. Chief Election Commissioner and 7 others (PLD 1997 SC 32), M. Aslam Khaki v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD 2000 SC 225), Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. MRs, Asma Jehangir (PLD 2004 SC 219), D.G. Cement Company Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2004 SCM R 456) and Shoukat Baig v.
Shahid Jami (PLD 2005 SC 530)."
6. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to hold that Item No,31, clause (b) of Punjab Finance Act (No,IX) of 1997 as amended provides the determination of the stamp duty value on the basis of the property of the greatest value which in the instant case is Property No,RH 52-BII measuring 4 marlas, 7 sirsahi as its value has been given in the deed to be Rs,3,00,000/- and the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the valuation of the said property. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have already deposited the stamp duty with the respondents according to the greatest value of the Property No,RH 52-BII. If this is the situation, the respondents do not have any lawful authority either to demand the stamp duty on the basis of aggregate value of the two properties or to refuse to return the exchange deed instrument to the petitioners if they have paid the stamp duty in accordance with the property carrying the greatest value. The instant writ petition, therefore, is accepted and the act of the respondents of demanding the stamp duty on the exchange deed of the petitioners on the basis of aggregate value of the two properties is declared to be illegal and without lawful .Authority. If the petitioners have already paid the stamp duty in accordance with the property of the greatest value of Rs,3,00,000/- the instrument of exchange deed shall be released to the petitioner without any further delay of time by the respondents''. There is no order as to costs.