SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order annexure P-11 dated April 22, 2016 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority whereupon the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed refusing to set aside the order dated November 7, 2013 (annexure P-8) passed by the District Revenue Officer, Sirsa exercising the power of Collector under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the order dated September 29, 2014 (annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar directing the petitioner to deposit stamp duty of Rs.4,99,125/- on the sale deed annexure P-6 which was executed on April 17, 2012.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the agreement of sale had been executed in the year 2002 but the sale deed after a litigation between the parties was executed on the basis of another agreement which had arrived at by way of settlement in the litigation in the year 201 The Collector in exercise of powers under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act formed an opinion that the value of the property had not been truly set-forth in the instrument and required the petitioner to pay the stamp duty.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 laying down that no sale deed can be registered for an amount less than the Collector's rate, counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to distinguish the said judgment.