ROBUST BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no proceedings could have been initiated under Sec. 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, the 1899 Act') by the District Collector Faridabad-respondent No.3 on the recommendation of the respondent No.4 the Joint Sub-Registrar. The petitioner-Company had entered into a collaboration agreement and the same was registered on March 22, 2011 in respect of a land situate in Village Bhatola, District Faridabad. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company submitted an application to the Department of Town and Country Planning for grant of licence for development of a colony.

(2.) Supplementary collaboration agreement was also entered into between the parties and the same was registered on August 13, 2014. The Sub-Registrar-respondent No.4 referred the matter regarding registration of the supplementary collaboration agreement under Sec. 33 of the 1899 Act with the opinion the sufficient stamp duty had not been affixed thereon.

(3.) Vide order dated December 8, 2015, the District Collector- respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty and registration charges.