JAINABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference under section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Act has been made on the following facts.

(2.) ON 11 -6 -1975 Sagar Bai wife of Mangilal presented a deed of surrender before the Sub -Registrar for registration. The property in respect of which the deed was executed was agricultural land and the consideration was described at Rs.11,000/ -. The document was executed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs.75. The Sub -Registrar registered the document. Thereafter the Sub -Registrar reported the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of stamps under section 38 of the Act on the ground that the instrument in question was really a deed of conveyance and it was not duly stamped. The Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps held that the instrument was deed of conveyance and was not duly stamped. He, therefore, directed the petitioner to make good the deficiency in the 'tamp duty amounting to Rs.750 and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000 Aggrieved by the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamp. Ujjain the petitioner submitted a revision petition to the Board of Revenue under section 56 (1) of the Act. The Board of Revenue after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the Sub -Registrar had no jurisdiction to make the reference and the Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps Ujjain had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the ground that after registering the deed of surrender the Sub - Registrar had become functus officio and had no power to make a reference to the Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps Ujjain in the matter and hence made this reference.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the State that under section 47 -A of the Act as amended by the Indian Stamp Act (Madhya Pradesh Second Amendment) Act. 1975 the Sub -Registrar has the power to impound the document even after registration if in his opinion the document was not duly stamped and the Collector has also the power to deal with such document suo motu within five years from the date of the registration of any instrument. However section 47 -A of the Act applies only when the question involved is about the correctness of the market value of the property dealt with by the instrument. But in the present case the question of market value of the property is not involved. Therefore, the provisions of section 47 -A of the Act are not attracted to the present case. In the circumstances the Sub -Registrant after registering, the instrument in question had become functus officio and he had no power to, impound the document and, refer the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps Ujjain and the latter had no power to pass the impugned order holding that the document was insufficiently stamped and directing the petitioner to make good, the deficiency and also to, impose a. fine of Rs.2000/ - on the petitioner.