KRISHNA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub Registrar, Nilokheri, District Karnal whereby, in exercise of powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short, 'the Act'), the sale deed of the plot in question executed by Tanuj Kumar in favour of the petitioner was impounded and the matter was referred to Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Karnal for further adjudication and determination of the correct value of the property for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 5.12.2001, an agreement was entered into regarding sale of plot No. 31, Sector-12 (Part-II) Karnal measuring 307.5 square meters. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 3,50,000/-. The entire amount was paid on the date of execution of agreement. After the receipt of the permission from Haryana Urban Development Authority, the sale deed was registered on 4.8.2004 in favour of the petitioner and requisite stamp duty of Rs. 28,000/- was affixed thereon. However, the same was impounded under Section 47-A of the Act by the Sub Registrar on the ground of under valuation on the same day and the matter was referred to the Collector. He further submitted that bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been passed without application of mind as there was no material before the Sub Registrar to form an opinion that the value of the property, as shown in the sale deed, was not correct. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no application of mind by the competent authority rather the names and figures have been filled up in a blank typed/printed proforma, on which the Sub Registrar signed. Even certain non- applicable terms/descriptions mentioned in the impugned order have not been deleted. The requirement of Section 47-A of the Act have not been complied with as there are no reasons to believe available on record to show that there is under valuation in the sale consideration. To support his contention, he has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana and others, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 581 : 2001(1) PLJ 364 and Chamkaur Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 249.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Deepak Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents and perused the paper book with their assistance.