ALLAH DITTA BHATTI vs AMJAD SAEED and others

' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 29-6-2000 the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against one Malik Muhammad Riaz. According to the contents of the plaint, he agreed to transfer the suit property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs,35,00,000. The suit remained pending. It appears that the said Malik Muhammad Riaz died and his LRs were brought on record. The said LRs entered into a compromise with the petitioner which was recorded on 6-5- 2004 and the suit was decreed as prayed for. Pursuant to the said decree, a sale-deed was executed by the said LRs of the said Malik. Muhammad Riaz deceased and the same was presented for registration vide receipt dated 3-11-2004. The consideration was mentioned as Rs,40,00,000 and a stamp duty of Rs .80,000 was paid.

2. The grievance being .Made out in this writ petition filed in this Court on 4-1-2005 is that the respondents are not registering the said document and are insisting that the petitioner should pay stamp duty according to the current valuation list issued under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.

3. The writ petition was admitted to hearing on 11-1-2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the cases of Province of Punjab, through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore etc. v. Messrs. Marhaba Dawakhana etc. (1999 CLC 450 DB, Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suleman Khan v. D.G./ Registrar, Lahore District (2002 CLC 226) and Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar and others (1995 CLC 674) that the sale- deed has been executed pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the respondents cannot insist upon payment of stamp duty in terms of section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. Learned A.A-G.

With reference to the comments filed by the respondents is of the opinion that the stamp duty is payable in accordance with the current valuation list.

5. I have gone through the file of this case. The facts have been stated above and not denied by the respondents. The said judgments cited by the learned counsel are squarely attracted. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case of Province of Punjab v. Messrs.

Marhaba Dawakhana that the Sub-Registrar was not competent to ignore the decree of the Court or to direct parties to pay stamp duty on self inflated rates. It was also observed that the valuation tables issued A by the Collectors have no legal basis or sanctity. This judgment, in fact, confirms the earlier view of this Court in the said case of Muhammad Aslam v. Sub-Registrar while these judgments were followed in the said case of Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Suelman Khan. In view of the law clearly laid down in the said judgments, the respondents have no lawful authority to call upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The respondents are bound by the terms of the decree and the sale-deed which has been executed in accordance with the terms thereof and otherwise bears proper stamp duty shall be registered by them, of course, on payment of other requisite charges like registration fee. No, orders as to costs.