Gurnam Singh v. Divisional Commissioner And Others
CWP-2218-2022
!"#!$"$ GURNAM SINGH !!! % & & DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA & ORS !!!
& &
' ()'
! & & % & )
!" #$
%%%% & % & )*!+
), & ' ( ) * ) * + This is a petition that has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) whereby reference was accepted by the District Collector, Barnala and recovery of Rs.1,37,140/- (i.e. deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.1,28,695/- and registration charges of Rs.8,445/-), was ordered and the order dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed being time barred.
$ Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that sale deed was registered on 29.03.2006 and the reference was made by the SubRegistrar to the Collector pertaining to alleged deficiency in stamp duty, after a period of 9 years, which is not sustainable. He would further contend that at the time of registration of document, no objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar regarding deficiency of stamp duty and, therefore, after the same was registered, the Sub Registrar became functus officio and would not be competent to forward any such reference to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act regarding alleged deficiency of stamp duty payable. In this regard, he would rely upon judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 91; Jagdish Versus State of Haryana and others2011(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 486 and Pankaj Gupta and others Versus State of Haryana and others-2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 590 wherein it has been held that once a Sub Registrar registers a document, he would become functus officio.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and seeks time to file reply.
Adjourned to 23.11.2022.
In the meantime, no coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned orders shall be taken against the petitioner. ,
- & $
.
&( / 0
#
*
1 & !
2 3 4 (.+ , 4
&566 )
$
& 1 & ) ! 2 7 &1.&(8+
* 7 $ 4!
2 &.
1 &. $ $ * ) * 4 $ $
)
* 9 $
* 1 &. 9 + )
4 $
$ $ )$$ , $ ( 4 : $ ;+5(+&5
& &6)$ ) *$
+ In Raghbir and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2004(1) PLR 545, another Division Bench of this Court held that no action can be taken by a Collector under sub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act after expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument. Consequently, the argument of the State that the action had been initiated within the prescribed period is without any merit.
Coming to the second argument raised by the State, it deserves to be mentioned that once the very initiation of the proceedings is beyond the prescribed period and the result of the proceedings is a foregone conclusion, no useful purpose would be served in forcing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice and face the proceedings before the authorities. Accordingly, the second argument of the State also does not survive. It may further be noticed that this Court had in a number of decisions interfered and quashed the show cause notices where it found that the notices had been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the Division bench judgments in Smt. Chand Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 776; Sub Registrar, Nuh and another Versus Mahipal and others, 2012(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 475; Atam Praksh Pasricha Versus State of Haryana and others, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 834 and Eshbeen Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 673. / #*
) * $ 4 < , ) $ ) )
* 9+ +( $
- & : &( 1 ( +& % & ), ; 4 3 *8 =8- ; 7 $ =8-