GURU JAMBESHWAR SURPHUR GUR AND KHANDASRI PRODUCTION CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rijhu Ram, Ashok Kumar and Kumar contracted to sell land measuring 4 kanals 14 marlas for a consideration of Rs. four lacs to the petitioner, M/s The Guru Jambeshwar Sulphur Gur and Khandsari Production Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. Dhani Majra. The document was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Fatehbad on 5.1.1983 and though no stamp duty had been affixed on the sale deed, the Sub Registrar nevertheless registered the document and referred the same to the Collector vide order dated 4.3.1983 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The parties, appeared before the Collector on 16.5.1983 and on the objection raised by the petitioner's counsel that an un-stamped document could not be registered under Section 47-A of the Act, the matter was returned to the Sub Registrar for re-consideration. The Sub Registrar thereafter impugned the document vide his order dated 21.5.1983 under Section 33 of the Act and referred the same to the Collector, who on 2.3.1984 vide Annexure P1 passed a formal order for registration of the document and directed that a stamp duty of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- be levied on the vendee, The appeal taken to the Additional District Judge, Hisar was also dismissed vide order dated 7.1.1986. It is against the aforesaid orders that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that it was virtually the conceded position that Section 47-A of the Act was not applicable as there was no allegation whatsoever that the instrument had been under-valued. He has also urged in this connection that even Section 33 of the Act was applicable as the document had not come before the Collector in the course of proceedings before him. In this connection, he has relied on a judgment reported as Rajindra Narayan Singh Deo v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1966 Orissa 214.

(3.) Mr. C.R. Dahiya, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has, however, pointed out that it was the admitted position that the matter had come before the Collector on a reference made by the Sub-registrar and it was in fact the Sub-Registrar, who had initially registered the document and then referred it for the orders of the Collector and as such Section 33 of the Act was clearly applicable to the facts in issue. In this connection, he has relied upon a judgment reported as Kethineedi Jainendra Kumar v. District Registrar Bluru and Anr., A.I.R. 2000 A.P. 268.