VIKAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the authorities could question a registered transfer deed by exercising power under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act'), after the expiry of period of three years. The petitioner has claimed that order dated 29.9.2006 (P-3), passed by the Collector, Rohtak-respondent No. 3, be set aside as it questions a Relinquish Deed bearing No. 1031/1, registered on 10.5.2001, under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 23.5.2007 (P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak-respondent No. 2, on an appeal wherein the order dated 29.9.2006, has been upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Darshna Devi, owned a house and consequent upon her death the same was vested in the petitioner, his brother Vivek and sisters. On 10.5.2001, all the three sisters executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother Vivek in equal share of the shares inherited by them. On 7.12.2005, respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as the stamp duty affixed on the Relinquishment Deed was found to be insufficient (P-1). The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegation (P-2). On 29.9.2006, respondent No. 3 rejected the defence of the petitioner and called upon him to deposit stamp duty amounting to Rs. 60,249/- by assessing the value of the property at Rs. 3,88,800/- as per Collectors rate, within 30 days (P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2007 (P-4), upholding the order dated 29.9.2006, passed by respondent No. 3, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) THE only argument raised by the respondents is that an audit objection was raised vide Audit Note dated 12.6.2002 and on the basis of the audit objection it was sought to be contended that within the period of three years objections have been taken (R-1). Therefore, the period of three years would not come in the way of the respondents as audit objection was raised on 12.6.2002. We find that the argument is totally absurd because there was no communication of the audit objection to the petitioner so as to constitute a basis for argument that the action was taken within period of three years. The real action was initiated only on the issuance of show cause notice, which admittedly was issued on 7.12.2005. It is well settled that the communication of the order alone confer on a paper the status of an order as has been postulated by Article 166 of the Constitution. The aforementioned provision was interpreted by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395. In that case the Constitution Bench had held that till an order is communicated it would not assume the character of executive action. A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 819 : (2003)5 SCC 413. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition succeeds. Orders dated 29.9.2006 and 23.5.2007 (P-3 & P-4) are set aside. It is held that no proceedings could be undertaken against the petitioner in respect of Relinquishment Deed, dated 10.5.2001. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.