KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01/03/2017 passed by respondent no. 1 whereby respondent no. 1 has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty to the tune of Rs. 32,574/-.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land situated as a part of Khasra no. 151/1, P.H no. 41, Bhagat Singh Marg, Shajapur, Tehsil and District- Shajapur. Respondent no. 3 has taken the said land admeasuring 1750 sqft on lease for erection and installation of GSM Cellular Tower. The said lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on 28/08/2008. Thereafter, a case was registered against the petitioner under section 48(B) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short " the Act") for deficit stamp on the said instrument by the Collector of Stamps on 15/02/2016 and notices were directed to be issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 10/11/2016 again notice was issued to the petitioner under section 47(A(3) of the Act calling upon him to appear on 28/11/2016 along with original documents. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and filed detailed reply with preliminary objection as to maintainability of the proceedings initiated beyond five years of the execution of the instrument. However, learned Collector of Stamps, without dealing the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the proceedings has passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Collector (Stamp) is without jurisdiction. He further submits that in the present case, the case was registered on 15/02/2016 and the instrument was executed on 28/08/2008. He further submits that as per section 48(B) of the Act clearly provides that no action shall be taken after a period of five years from the date of execution of such instrument and thus, the order is perse illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the case has been registered under section 48(B) of the Act and notice has been issued under secton 47(A)(3) of the Act which has no relevance in the case. Section 47(B) of the Act clearly mandates that original instrument is to be produced before the Collector (Stamp), but no such order has been passed by the Collector (stamp) to produce the same. In light of the aforesaid, he submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.