This Constitutional petition calls in question the order dated 19.03.2001, whereby the registration authority/Sub-Registrar has refused to register the sale deed and directed the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty according to the schedule of stamp duty issued by the Government.
2. Shortly the facts giving rise to filing the instant petition, that the petitioner Sardar Muhammad entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2/Basheer Ahmad on 02.08.1972 for the purchase of land, situated in Shujabad, Multan, against consideration; on the refusal of the respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.
The suit was contested by the respondent No.2, by filing written statement, the learned trial Court framed issues out of the pleadings, and put the case for evidence.
At this stage the parties to the suit entered into a compromise on 27.06.2000 and consequently the suit was decreed on 05.09.2000.
3. The petitioner Sardar Muhammad as alleged by him for the execution of the decree filed an execution petition on 02.10.2000, whereupon the learned Executing Court deputed a Court representative for the registration of the sale deed. The petitioner alongwith the Court representative approached to the respondent No.1/SubRegistrar for registration of the sale deed, who refused to register the same on the ground, that the petitioner has paid the insufficient stamp duty, which is not in accordance with the schedule issued under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. The Sub-Registrar on the asking of the petitioner demanded the report from the Registration Clerk, Shujabad, who reported, that the petitioner will have to pay the Stamp Duty Rs.72,080/- as per letter of Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 20.10.1988.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the respondent authority could not refuse to register the sale deed on the ground, that the petitioner has paid the less stamp duty, which is against the provision of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, and the petitioner is only bound to pay the stamp duty according to the value assessed by the parties. Learned counsel further submitted, that the petitioner cannot give effect retrospectively of the amended Section 27-A of the Stamp Act.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate General opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of section 80 of the Registration Act 1908 and submitted, that the petitioner is bound to pay the stamp duty according to the schedule issued by the Government of Punjab.
6. As per the record, the agreement to sell between the parties was executed in the year 1972, whereas the decree was passed on 05.09.2000, by the learned Civil Court and the petitioner under the order of the Court submitted the sale deed for registration to the Sub-Registrar, therefore, the provisions of section 27-A of Stamp Act amended on 1986 were very much attracted, therefore, the respondent/registration authority rightly claimed the additional stamp duty according to the schedule for facilitation the section 27 A of Stamp Act 1899. The same is produced as under:- "Value of immovable property. (1) Where any instrument chargeable with ad volorem duty under 4[Articles 23, 27-A, 31 or 33] of Schedule I, relates to an immovable property, the value of the immovable property shall be calculated according to the valuation table notified by the District Collector in respect of immovable property situated in the locality."
7. The simple interpretation of aforesaid provision of law would be that the value of the immovable property at the time of registration shall be completed according to the valuation table recorded by the District Collector. The Registration Act, 1908, has also taken care of this type of situation, the same is reproduced here:- "80. Fee payable on presentation. All fees for the registration of documents under this Act shall be payable on the presentation of such documents."
The aforesaid provision of law clearly shows, that all the fees for the registration of the document shall be payable on the day of presentation of such document.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner although referred the case law but the basic provision of law Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, is very much clear whereby the District Collector has been authorized to calculate the value of the property and notified the same.
9. It is also notable, that the petitioner has not challenged the valuation table issued by the respondent authority rather submitted, that the agreement to sell was executed in the year 1992, and delay occurred for submitting the sale for registration is not on the part of the petitioner but because of litigation started and culminated in the year 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred another letter during the course of arguments, dated 20th October 1988, issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, wherein the opinion of the law department upon this issue is mentioned, which is as under:- "The Law Department has agreed with the views of Board of Revenue. It has been clarified that in view of the provision of Section 27-A(1) of the Stamp Act, effective from 14.06.1986. Stamp duty on sale deeds is to be paid on the value of the land given in the valuation table notified by the Collector of the district and not on the value of the property fixed by the parties or determined in decrees passed in suits for specific performance of the contract."
10. In view of the above, the petitioner has no option but to pay the stamp duty as per the valuation table issued by the District Collector, therefore, this petition has no force. Resultantly, the same stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
11. In the light of above, C.M. No.3952 of 2010, also stands disposed of.