RAGHBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing notice dated 2.12.2002 (Annexure P.1) issued by Sub Registrar-II, Jind (respondent No. 3) for recovery of the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 46,880/- in respect of sale deed Nos. 471 dated 3.5.1995, 800 dated 20.6.1996 and 899 dated 29.6.1995.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners and their father-Shri Chandgi Ram purchased land measuring 39 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 218, Khatoni Nos. 218, 242, 243, 143/1, 244, Rect. No. 30, Killa Nos. 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5(8-0) and Rect. No. 31 Killa No. 1(7-8) from Smt. Saroj Bala wife of Shri Krishan Lal vide registered sale deed No. 471 dated 30.5.1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,98,000/- by paying stamp duty of Rs. 24,750/-. They purchased another parcel of land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 219, Khatoni Nos. 241 and 243, Rect. No. 15, Killa Nos. 12(2-7), 14(3-7), 15(4-16), 16/2(5-12), 18(7-10), 17(8-0), 19(8-0), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0) and Rect. No. 14, Killa No. 21(7-8), measuring 79 Kanals (Rakba Moza Nidani) from Smt. Saroj Bala, vide sale deed No. 800 dated 20.6.1995 which was got registered by paying stamp duty of Rs. 23,750/-. They purchased one more piece of land measuring 23 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 219, Khatoni Nos. 241 and 243, Rect. No. 15, Killa Nos. 12(2-7), 14(3-7), 15/1(4-16), 16/2 (5-12), 17(8-0), 18(7-10), 19(8-0), 22(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 14, Killa No. 21(7-8), total 79 Kanals (Rakba Moza Nidani), Tehsil and District Jind from Smt. Saroj Bala for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- and got registered sale deed No. 899 dated 29.6.1995 by paying stamp duty of Rs. 23,750/-. After 7 years, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned notice requiring the petitioners to make good the alleged deficiency of the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 46,880/- with a stipulation that if they failed to deposit the deficient stamp duty, then the same will be recovered as land revenue by attachment of the property.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that the impugned notice was issued by respondent No. 3 in view of the objection raised by the audit party of the office of Accountant General, Haryana, which carried out the audit of the account books maintained by his office. In para 8 of the written statement, the respondents have detailed the audit objection raised by the audit party and averred that the impugned notice has been issued in furtherance of the said objection.