JUDGMENT AMIR ALAM KHAN, J.- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the validity of the valuation table and assessment lists prepared and issued by the District Collector, Khanewal, whereby the value of the properties located in the district have been determined and declared and the contracting parties intending to sell and purchase the property are required to conclude the sale deeds on the basis of assessment made and the valuation fixed in the said lists.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner being a resident of Khanewal city claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase a plot of land measuring 18 marlas from its owners M/s. Shamim Kausar and others. The said owners having agreed to sell the land, referred to above, at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per maria have also executed a general power of attorney in favour of Syed Akhtar Ali Zaidi for the purposes of completing the sale in favour of the petitioner as also for carrying out the matters connected therewith. It is submitted that in pursuance of the agreement, referred to above, the petitioner hired the services of a Petition Writer to get the needful done when he was apprised by the said Petition Writer that respondents No. 2 to 4 have already classified the land situate in the city and has also fixed the market value thereof for the purposes of charging stamp duty on the properties/sale deeds which are required to be registered before respondent No. 2. The petitioner was also apprised that the Sub-Registrar i.e. Respondent. No. 3 has already declined to register many title deeds on which stamp duty had not been fixed in accordance with the schedule prepared by respondent No. 1. It was in this background that the petitioner looked for the valuation table prepared for the properties situate in urban area of District Khanewal and was shocked to see that the same had been issued by respondent No. 1 and had also been revised/amended from time to time allegedly in accordance with the prevailing . Market rates of the property in the locality.
3. The validity of. The above-said valuation tables has been challenged on the ground that the same had been prepared without intimation to the residents of the concerned arcs as also without notifying the same as required under Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. It has been emphasised that the provisions of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act being mandatory, the valuation tables as prepared by respondent No. 1 could not be enforced without notifying the same to the residents of the various areas. Another ground of attack was to the effect that the valuation tables, as prepared by. Respondent No. 1, are. Not in accord with the prevailing market rates and that the value and rates notified in the said valuation table are arbitrary. The debate was summoned up with the argument that, the settlement and fixation of price of the property forming subject-matter of a sale deed is in the exclusive domain of the seller and the purchaser and that both of them are not bound to pay the stamp duty according to the valuation fixed and declared by the District Collector. As a corollary, it was maintained that the Sub- Registrar had no law-full authority lt) refuse the registration of a document in violation of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act. Reliance was placed on a case reported as Mst. Sobia Hanif v. The Collector (Deputy Commissioner) Lahore District and 5 others (1993 CLC 2073).
4. Report and parawise comments were called for and the same have since been received. It is submitted therein that the valuation table was prepared under the directions/instructions of the Board of Revenue, Government of the Punjab,. Lahore case contained in the letter No. 7085- 91/2070-ST(l), dated 1.12.1994 and as such no valid grouse can be made in regard thereto. It is further maintained that the valuation table has been prepared keeping in view the market value of the properties-lands situate in urban as well as rural areas of Khanewal District and that the same has been revised/amended as per directions of the Government according to the increase and decrease of the value of immovable properties situate-located in the said District. It was lastly urged that the copies of valuation tables were sent to the concerned quarters for information and necessary action and that the same were displayed oh the notice board of respondent No. 3 as required under the law.
5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued his case on the basis of his grounds taken in the writ petition and so did the learned Addl. Advocate-General on the grounds enumerated in the report and parawise comments.
6. If would be noted from the facts, noted above as also the exposition of law relevant .Thereto that the provisions of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 are required to be interpreted particularly in view of the fact that the arguments advanced by the learned-AddlA. G. Are rocked on the provisions of the said Section. It would be advantageous, therefore, to reproduce Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 which 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) of Article 31 of Schedule 1. 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 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 subsection (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 apply mutatis mutandis".
A bare reading of the Section noted above would show that the valuation table as required to be prepared by the Collector is to be notified so as to make the same effective. Mr. Nasir Khan, General Assistant A.G. Has very candidly stated before me that the said table was not notified to the general public by any of the modes i.e. By either publication in the newspapers or by a beat of drum or by affixation at some conspicuous place in the area. I was, however, submitted that the said table was displayed on the notice board of respondent No. 3 and that the same is enough compliance with the relevant provisions of law. The precise submission was to the effect that the issuance of the valuation table as also its display on the notice board of respondent No. 3 tantamount to "notify" the same within the meaning of the word as used in Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.
The word "modify" fell for interpretation in many cases and lately in the case of Mst. Sobia Hanif supra and was interpreted to mean that the information about the valuation table and the rates fixed therein must have been notified to the public in general through some methods by which it could be made known to the general public, it would be relevant and instructive for all concerns to quote two passages from the said judgment: "The learned Additional Advocate-Gone; .d 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 word "notified" is not without significance, for it has by now acquired definite chicaning. The expressions "notify", "notified^ and "notification" as used in various 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 arc employed to convey the sense of "making known". It is, therefore, idle on the part of the learned Additional Advocate-General to contend that mere i , because. Section 27-A does not require that the 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 the valuation table- which need not be published 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 arc likely to be affected and especially the residents of the area and locality where the land is- situated."
At another place it has been observed: - "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 the Section 27-A that the. Information about the valuation table and the rates 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-staled that he had repeatedly instructed the respondents to produce the record to show that the valuation table has been published 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.."
6. The ratio deducible from the judgment rendered in the case noted above is too obvious. The District Collector having prepared the table was obliged under the law to 'notify' the same to the public in general by various means i.e. By publication in the. Newspapers or by. Beat of drum or by affixation of the same at some conspicuous place in the. Locality. This having not/been done, the provisions of the Section 27-A of the. Stamp Act, 1899 were manifestly not completed with, therefore, the valuation table prepared by the District Collector cannot be deemed to be effective nor the public at large is bound to comply therewith. There is yet another angle of the case which needs to be attended to. The Legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'notify' in Section 27 or the Stamp Act, 1899 with If" definite purpose. The word 'notify', if read in conjunction with sub-section (4), of Section 27-A ibid gains magnitude inasmuch as a right has been secured in favour of the residents of the area to object to the valuation of the properties as fixed by the Collector. This, right of the residents 6f the area can. Only be exercised when the valuation table itself is notified by one of the modes referred to earlier i.e . By beating of drum, proclamation in the newspaper or by affixing the same at some conspicuous place in the area. This having not been done, the residents of the urea could not be saddled with the liability to pay the Stamp Duty on the value determined by the Collector and enumerated in the valuation label/list. All in all this right of hearing as recognized in the law generally and enshrined in sub-clause(4) of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act could not be taken away or set at naught-by simply displaying the valuation table on the board fixed outside the office of the Sub-Registrar of the area i.e. Respondent No. 3. All in all it would be seen that the intent of the legislature as incorporated in the provisions of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act have not been complied with, therefore, the valuation table as prepared and issued by the District Collector Cannot be sustained nor the same can be blessed so as to be effective for the purposes that it was made.
7. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the valuation . Table is^declared to be of no legal effect. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.