RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had purchased 1 kanal 14 marlas of land situated in village Hussainpur, Tehsil and District Rewari vide sale deed dated March 15, 2010 for Rs. 4,46,500/-. The sale deed was got registered by affixing stamp duty of Rs. 22,325/-. As per the entries made, at the time of registration of the sale deed, no deficiency in the stamp duty was mentioned. Stamp Auditor while inspecting the sale deed pointed out the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 16115/-. The Sub Registrar made a reference under Section 47 A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act for initiating the proceedings before the Collector, Rewari but the Collector, Rewari vide order dated December 2, 2011, annexure P-3 fixed the price of the said land as Rs. 2300/- per sq. yard and fixed the sale price as Rs. 23,65,550/-. The stamp duty on the said amount came to be Rs. 1,18,278/-. Since the petitioner had affixed a stamp duty of Rs. 22325/- at the time of registration of sale deed, the Collector had assessed the deficiency of Rs. 95,952/- besides assessing sum of Rs. 11500/- as registration fee. On receipt of notice for recovery of the deficiency, the petitioner had approached the Collector. The Collector inspected the site and found that houses have been constructed in the vicinity of the land and the suit land was valuable and no agriculture work was undertaken at the spot. The petitioner had purchased the land for the purpose of residence as such the Collector passed the order on the basis of the relevant documents. The Collector vide order dated December 2, 2011 passed an order for recovery of the deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee against which an appeal was filed. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, on December 13, 2012.

(2.) In the reply filed, the respondents have pleaded that the respondents have acted as per the procedure prescribed under Section 47 A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act and the instructions dated May 21, 2003, annexure R-4/1. It is averred in the reply that respondents are duty bound to ensure that no loss is done or caused to the State exchequer as the respondents are further duty bound to work as custodian thereof. It is averred in the reply that no constitutional right of the petitioner stands defeated.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action on the report of the Auditor is contrary to the procedure under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 217 in which it was held that under Section 47 A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, there is a mandatory duty of the Collector to hold an inquiry in the manner prescribed in Rule 5 A of the Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1978. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Mahabir Singh, 1996 (1) RRR 588 (SC) has interpreted Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of Punjab and held as follows:-