Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
%
+
W.P.(C) No.5975/2013
MANU NARANG & ANR
..... Petitioners
Versus
..... Petitioner
Versus
..... Respondents
..... Petitioner
Versus
Page 1 of 12
Counsels for the petitioners:Mr. Manav Gupta along with Ms. Esha Dutta, Advs. in W.P.(C)
No.5975/2013.
Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. in W.P.(C) No.10328/2015.
Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa along with Mr.
Vipul Kumar, Advs. in W.P.(C) No.3951/2014.
Counsels for the respondents:Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, ASC
Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. for R-5.
Ms. Mini Pushkarna with Ms. Yoothika Pallavi, Adv. for SDMC.
Ms.Uttara Babbar with Mr. Vinod Kapoor, Advs. in CM
No.2385/2015 in W.P.(C) No.3591/2014
Mr. Anshuman Sood, Adv. for Intervener.
Mr. Akshay Makhija, Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikas Bhadauria and
Ms. Mahima Behl, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav, Adv. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv for
SDMC in W.P.(C) No.3591/2014.
CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1.
Page 2 of 12
3.
Page 3 of 12
(iv) for declaration that the frequency of revision of Circle Rates in Delhi is
against the mandate of Rule4(2) of the 2007 Rules supra; and, (v) for
declaring Rule 4(2)(B) of the 2007 Rules as well as the Notifications as
beyond the scope of Section 27(3) of the Stamp Act etc.
4.
The said petition was also entertained and notice thereof issued.
5.
Judge of this Court but was also called before this Bench finding the
questions involved therein to be identical to the questions raised in the
W.P.(C) No.3591/2014 filed as a Public Interest Litigation and pending
before this Bench.
7.
commenced together and the senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
W.P.(C) No.5975/2013, 3591/2014 & 10328/2015
Page 4 of 12
No.3591/2014 was heard from 8th April, 2015 onwards. The arguments on
behalf of the petitioners were concluded on 23rd April, 2015 and the matters
posted for arguments on behalf of the respondent GNCTD. WP(C)
10328/2015 came up first on 4th November, 2015 and the questions therein
being also identical, the counsel for the petitioner therein also joined in the
hearing already underway. After several requests for adjournment, the senior
counsel for the respondent GNCTD commenced his arguments on 19th
November, 2015. However, finding that he was not addressing the
contentions of the counsel for the petitioners, we on that date asked the
counsel for the petitioners to submit their written submissions with advance
copy to the counsel for the respondent GNCTD to enable the counsel for the
respondent GNCTD to respond thereto. The matter was accordingly
adjourned to 4th December, 2015.
8.
Page 5 of 12
discretion vested in the authorities concerned inter alia under Section 47-A
of the Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi.
9.
The said Section 47-A is as under:47-A. (1) If the Registering Officer, while registering any
instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe
that the value of the property or the consideration, as the
case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he
may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the
Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as
the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.
(2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the
Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable
opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in
such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this
Act, by order, determine the value of the property or the
consideration and the duty aforesaid; and the deficient
amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable
to pay the duty and, on the payment of such duty, the
Collector shall endorse a certificate of such payment on the
instrument under his seal and signature.
(3) The Collector may, suo moto, within two years from the
date of registration of any instrument not already referred to
him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the
instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be,
and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination
he has reason to believe that the value or consideration has
not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine
the value or consideration and the duty aforesaid in
accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section
(2), and the deficient amount of duty, if any shall be payable
to the person liable to pay the duty and, on the payment of
such duty, the Collector shall endorse a certificate of such
payment on the instrument under his seal and signature.
Page 6 of 12
10.
It was the argument of the senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
Page 7 of 12
During the hearing on 19th November, 2015, finding that the senior
counsel for the respondent GNCTD was not addressing the said
issue/contention, we had invited his attention thereto and on his request
adjourned the matter.
12.
On 4th December, 2015 the senior counsel for the respondent GNCTD
stated that the GNCTD had re-examined the matter in the aforesaid light and
was prepared to issue a further order clarifying / amending the impugned
orders/circulars. A draft order to be issued was handed over in the Court and
a copy thereof also handed over to the counsel for the petitioners.
13.
The counsels for the petitioners on going through the draft order
proposed to be issued were not satisfied with the language thereof and
contended that the same was likely to perpetuate the ambiguity.
W.P.(C) No.5975/2013, 3591/2014 & 10328/2015
Page 8 of 12
14.
that the stamp duty paid on a transfer document need not always be in
accordance with the prescribed circle rates and that if the valuation and
stamp duty is below the circle rates, the procedure as prescribed in Section
47-A supra is to be followed, the grievances of the said petitioners would
also be redressed, they were agreeable thereto.
Page 9 of 12
19.
The counsel for the Municipality also stated that the determination of
valuation for the payment of transfer duty to the Municipality would also be
as the determination for the purposes of stamp duty.
20.
21.
We now proceed to dispose of all the writ petitions in the light of the
in
the
event
of
the
consideration
mentioned
in
the
Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 23, 2015
pp
Page 12 of 12