MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.~ In execution of a decree for recovery of money passed in COS No. 8/93 by this Court sale of the property of the judgment debtor was ordered. For this purpose a Sale Committee was constituted. After the formal proceedings a document was executed titled as "Sale Certificate" in favour of the purchaser. The property described in Schedule-A to the said document dated 30.9.1998 was sated to have been sold to the purchaser for a consideration of Rs.
1,75,00,000/-. The executants were member of the Sale Committee constituted by this Court. The petitioner at the relevant time was Sub-registrar at Ferozewala. The document was presented before him and he registered the same on the said date. Stamp duty was paid in accordance with Article 23 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1899. Municipal Tax, Capital Value Tax and Registration Fee was also paid accordingly.
2. According to the writ petition, after the registration of the said document in the first instance another person was posted as Sub-registrar instead of the petitioner. Further complaints were lodged against him with the Anti-Corruption Establishment as also a Member Board of Revenue, Lahore. The petitioner has been accused of failing to recover the Stamp Duty in accordance with value as notified under Section 27-A for the area in question, and incidental tax/charges.
3. Report and parawise comments were called for which have been filed, it has been stated in the report that the document was out and out sale but was executed and registered as a sale certificate when there was no Court sale within the meaning of law. It has been further stated that in the area in question the notified value of the land is Rs.1,80,000/- per maria and according to this rate, value of the land comes to Rs.23,43,60,000/- which calls for payment of stamp duty of a sum of Rs.2,34,36000/- and Municipal Tax and CVT is to be paid accordingly, it has been stated that total amount payable was Rs.4,10,13,000/- whereas the said purchaser paid only Rs.30,62,500/- and in this manner a loss of Rs.3,79,50,000/- was caused, it was for this reason that proceedings were commenced against the petitioner.
4. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner wherein it has been explainability according to the schedule for the area notified at the relevant time, the value was Rs.18,00,000/- per acre. The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, proceeded to amend Schedule (Item No. 53) retrospectively on 25.8.1999 i.e. Almost a year after the. Registration of the sale-deed, it was further stated that as per the said rate even if the document was to be treated as a sale, value of the land comes to Rs.1,46,47,500/-. A copy .Of the Schedule and the said Corrigendum dated 25.8.1999, was appended with the rejoinder.
5. In view of the said allegations made in the rejoinder a further report was called for from the respondents which was filed and it was admitted that Item No. 53 of the schedule regarding the value of the land in the area at Rs.18,00,000/- per acre in fact was amended with retrospective effect on 25.8.1999.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the document for all purposes was a "Sale Certificate" but even if it be taken to be a sale-deed, the petitioner had said rather excessive stamp duty. Farther contends that the schedule was amended retrospectively only to create a ground for proceeding against the petitioner and this speaks for the mala fide of the respondents.
7. Learned A.A.-G., on the .Other hand, has tried to argue that the sale was .Of land as well as structure and machinery and the petitioner did not take any step to assess and to recover stamp duty and further charges on the value of the said structures, etc. And this constitutes mis-conduct oh his part.
8. I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.-G. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, referred to above by me. It has been admitted that on 30.9.1998 when the document was presented for registration before the petitioner, the value of the land in the area as notified in terms of Section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 was Rs.18,00,000/- per acre. According to this value the value of the land (65 kanals, 2 marls) comes to Rs.1,46,47,500/-. Admittedly the consideration recorded in the document is Rs.1,75,00,000/-. Now Section 27-A(1) of the said Act provides that where an instrument js chargeable with ad valorem duty under Article 23(b) of the Schedule and the instrument relates to land only or land with any building or structure thereon, the value of the land shall be calculated according to the- valuation table notified by the Collector; Now so far as the land is concerned, there is no manner of doubt that the value stands calculated according to the, rather in excess of the, valuation table notified by the Collector. Sub-section (2) of Section' 27-A provides that in case an instrument relates to land with building or structure thereon, it shall state the value of the land and the building or structures separately and the value of structures so stated shall, subject- to the provisions of said Act, be accepted. Now it is true that the document does not separately state the value of the land and the building but to my mind nothing turns on the said omission inasmuch as the said provisions state that whatever the value of the building or structure is stated, shall be accepted.
The document executed by the "Sale Committee" constituted by this Court clearly narrates that Rs.
1,75,00,000/- is the value or consideration of the entire property stated in the schedule thereto. The purpose of law appears to be that the value of the land shall not be calculated at a value less than the one notified. Sub-section (3) of Section 27-A of the said Act clarifies the said position inasmuch as whether the value ot the land is shown *n excess of the one notified then the same shall be accepted. So tar as the non-mention of the building separately is concerned, the same is of no effect inasmuch as the document does narrate that the said value includes the value of the land as well as of the structure and other fixtures. This being so, the petitioner cannot be said to have, committed any illegality inasmuch as the building, etc. Can be adjusted in the excess value shown in the document.
9. It is also rather strange that the Deputy Commissioner thought it fit to amend only Item No. 53 in the said Schedule and that too retrospectively, in the said circumstances of the case.
10. For what ever has been discussed above, I do find that the proceedings for the said reasons have been initiated against the petitioner without lawful authority and are accordingly declared as such b^allowing this writ petition.
No orders as to costs.