MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM J:- This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 12165, 5691 of 1991 and 3163 and 633 of 1992, which involve similar controversy.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3163/92, claims to have entered into an agreement on 3.2.1992 to purchase land measuring 10 Kanals 8 Marlas 97 square feet, situated in the revenue estates of Baghbanpura, Baghbanpura New Abadi and Bhogiwal, Tehsil Cantonment, District Lahore, at the rate of Rs.1500/- per maria from its owners (respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein). In pursuance to that agreement, a sale deed was executed by respondent Nos.2 to 6 in favour of the petitioner, on the receipt of the balance amount of consideration. There is no dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay advalorem stamp duty on this conveyance in accordance with the Stamp Act, 1899.
3. The grievance in the present petition, however, is that irrespective of the consideration for which the sale has taken place, the Sub-Registrar, Lahore, is demanding payment of stamp duty on the basis of a valuation table prepared by the Collector under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act. 1899. The validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector has been questioned in these petitions.
4. In the written statement/parawise comments flied by respondent No.1, the facts have not been disputed. It has, however, been maintained that under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act,1899, the Collector of the district is authorised to fix the market value of the land to obviate the evasion of stamp duty.
In support of this petition, Sh. Zia Ullah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised various contentions. In the first place, he challenged the validity of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which was introduced by the Punjab Act, 1986, on 4th June, 1986, by contending that it suffers from vice of excessive delegation as no guide-lines have been provided to the Collector for fixing the valuation of land. According to the learned counsel, this provision on the face of it is discriminatory.
It was next urged that the Collector while fixing valuation, has acted arbitrarily and value fixed by him is not based on any material. Lastly, the learned counsel emphasised that in any case, as the valuation had not been notified and published in the official Gazette, it has no legal effect.
6. In reply, Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate-General defended the validity of the impugned provision. He stated that valuation fixed by the Collector is in accord with the market value of the land, which has been worked out on the basis of the information supplied by the revenue officers. As regards the publication of table in the official Gazette, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate-General that Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 does not require that the valuation table be published in the official Gazette.
7. Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which falls for interpretation in these petitions, reads as under:- "27-A. Valuation of urban land. (1) Where any instrument chargeable with ad valorem duty under Sub-Article (b) of Article 23 or Sub-Article (b) or Article 31 of Schedule I, relates to land only with any building or structure thereon, the value of the land shall be calculated according to the valuation table notified by the Collector in respect of land situated in the area or locality concerned.
(2) Where an instrument, mentioned in sub-section (1), relates to land with building or structure thereon, it shall state the value of the land and the building or structure separately and the value of he building or structure separately and the value of the building or structure so stated shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be accepted.
(3) Where the value of land stated in an instrument to which sub-section (1) applies is more than the value fixed according to the valuation table, the value declared in the instrument shall be accepted as value for the purposes of duty.
(4) Where the value given in the valuation table notified under sub-section (1), when applied to any land, appears to be excessive, the Commissioner may, on application made to him by the aggrieved person, determine its correct value and for that purpose the provisions of Section 31 and Section 32 shall ap~Iy mutatis mutandis".
8. It is not necessary to deal with all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as these petitions are liable to be accepted on the short ground that the impugned table fixing the rates has not been notified/published in accordance with law.
9. The learned Additional Advocate-General is correct in submitting that Section 27-A does not specifically require that the valuation table issued by the Collector must be published in the official Gazette. However, this submission, by itself, is not conclusive of the controversy, as this provision does enjoin that the table must be "notified" by the Collector. The use of the word "notified" is not without significance, for it has by now acquired definite meaning. The expressions "notify", "notified" and "notification", as used invarious statutory instruments, have been subject-matter. Of judicial interpretation in many cases. The ratio of the decisions in those matters appears to be that the words are employed to convey the sense of "making known". It is, therefore, idle on the part of the learned Additional Advocate-General to contend that merely because Section 27-A does not require that table be published in the official Gazette, it was not necessary for the Collector to publicise the contents thereof. His argument that the Collector is only required to prepare valuation table need not publish stands negated by the use of the word "notified" instead of "prepared" or "issued". Clearly by employing the word "notified", the intention of the Legislature is manifest that the contents of valuation table must be published and made known to those who are likely to be affected and especially the residents of the area and locality where the land is situated.
10. It is also to be noticed that Section 2>A was added to the Stamp Act, 1899, by Punjab Act IV of 1986, which is a Provincial enactment. Consequently, while interpreting it, Section 2(41) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, according to which notification means a notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette has to be kept in view.
11. In ordinary parlance the word "notified" means the act of notifying or giving notice. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3rd Edition) at page 867 "notified" has been defined as:- "Having been given notice. In legal proceedings and in respect to public matters, the word is generally, if not universally, used as importing a notice given by some person, whose duty it was to give it in some -manner prescribed and to some person entitled to receive it or to be notified".
According to Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) at page 959, "notified" means as:- "To give notice to; inform by words or writing, any person or by message or by any single, which are understood; to make known. To notified: (1) a fact (2) Notify one of fact is to make it known to him; to inform him by notice".
"In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) Volume 28-A, the word notified" has been defined as:- "In legal proceedings and in respect to public matters, the word "notified" is generally if not universally used as implying a notice given by some person whose duty it was to give it in some manner prescribe, and to some person entitled to receive it or to be noticed".
12. In Muhammad Suleman etc. W. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1978 S.C. 190), Trustees of the Port of Karachi V.
Gujranwala Steel Industries and another (1990 CLC 197) and Muhammad Ishaque V. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab (PLD 1977 SC 639), the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the word "notification" clearly implies that the contents of the declaration in question must be made known to the public and not mere issuance of an order in the office of the Governmental Authority.
13. Reference may also be advantageously made to the judgment of Wajeehud Din Ahmad in Trustees of the Port of Karachi's case supra, which appears of great relevance. In that case, the word "notified" as appearing in Section 43(B) of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, fell for consideration. The learned Judge was pleased to draw a distinction between the cases where information is sought to be conveyed it to be given to a specific person or group of person and the cases where information is sought to be conveyed to the public in general. It was held that in latter case, not only a notification should be issued but it must be published in the official Gazette, so as to make known to the general public. I am in respectful agreement with this reasoning. Applying the above principles, it becomes evident that the valuation table drawn by the Collector, which is public functionary, must be notified by the publication in the official Gazette.
Even if it be assumed that the publication in the official Gazette of the valuation table was not necessary, it Cannot be seriously disputed in the presence of the word "notified" in Section 27-A that the information about the valuation table and the rate fixed therein must have been conveyed to the public in general, though some method by which it could be made known. In the present case, the learned Additional Advocate-General himself stated that he had repeatedly instructed the respondents to produce the record to show that the valuation table has been publicised either by its publication in the newspaper or by making the contents by customary method, like beating of drums or affixation of the table at public place. Unfortunately, no such record was produced and there is nothing to show that the contents of the valuation table were either brought to the notice of the public or to the residents of the locality to which it related. It appears that no attention was paid to this aspect of the matter and the valuation table was only conveyed to the concerned officers. That being so, the valuation table issued by the Collector cannot be said to have been notified and is, therefore, of no legal effect.
For the reasons stated above, all these petitions are allowed in the above terms, with no orders as to costs.