KANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the District Judge, Karnal dismissing the appeal of the appellant-petitioner as barred by time, in which the order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the Distt. Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Karnal (for brevity, 'Distt. Revenue Officer') was challenged. In his order dated 30.1.1996, the Distt. Revenue Officer has directed the appellant-petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,955/- as deficiency in the stamp duty and Rs. 223.75 as registration fee in the Government Treasury within a period of one month. This order was passed by the Distt. Revenue Officer exercising powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act') (as applicable to Haryana). The appeal of the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed as time barred as the appeal was not filed in a specified period of 30 days.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy raised in its proper parspective, brief facts may first be noticed. The appellant-petitioner had purchased a plot at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard which is alleged to be in his actual physical possession since long time. It is further averred that the plot was unlevelled and was in the shape of a pond. The vendor since belonged to Delhi instructed the appellant-petitioner to get the sale deed executed/registered at Delhi. It is further claimed that the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard was the actual sale price in such type of inferior plots which was fixed and paid by the appellant-petitioner. It is further alleged that sale deed in respect of plot No. 21 was registered and executed in favour of the appellant- petitioner in the year 1994 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard. Therefore, it was claimed that the sale deed executed vide Vasika No. 422/1 dated 10.3.1993 reflects correct value and accordingly adequate stamp papers of the value of Rs. 20058/- has been paid.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.