KANWALJIT SINGH Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dtd. 21/2/2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 and further for setting aside the order dtd. 28/7/2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner purchased the agricultural land for the sale consideration of Rs.17,55,000.00 in the year 2007 and stamp duty of Rs.1,58,000.00 was paid. After the execution of the sale deed in the year 2007, in the year 2014, respondent No.3 issued a letter to respondent No.2 saying that the sale deed has not sufficiently been stamped and proceedings under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act may be initiated. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued the notice to the petitioner, which was duly replied by the petitioner by inter alia stating that the proceedings initiated have become time barred under Sec. 47-A of the Act, however, respondent No.2 came to pass the order dtd. 21/2/2019, ignoring the plea raised by the petitioner in his reply. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by respondent No.2, also came to be dismissed on 28/7/2020. Both the said orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 respectively have been assailed in the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the SubRegistrar while registering the instrument did not impound the sale deed nor was any reference made to the Collector at his own instance. The sale deed was handed over to the petitioner after registration of the same. It is also argued that there are judgments to the effect that the reference can be made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector immediately after registration of an instrument or in the course of registration. It is submitted that in the judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 91, a reference had been made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector after a period of 8 days and it was held to be not in accordance with law. It is also argued that in the case of Iqbal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 365, it has been held that an audit party is not authorized under any provisions of the Indian Stamp Act to assess and determine the nature of any document or the stamp duty payable thereon.