Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs Divisional Commissioner And Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036610
2024:PHHC:036610
CWP-2218-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 CWP-2218-2022
Date of decision:-14.03.2024
GURNAM SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA &
ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate &
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. On 04.05.2022, while issuing notice to the respondents, this
Court passed the following order:-
"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.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036610
2024:PHHC:036610
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 Sub-
Registrar 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."
2. In their reply, official respondents No.1 and 2 have submitted
that they had received a complaint on 27.05.2014 from one Mr. Tarsem Lal
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036610
2024:PHHC:036610
Jindal and after investigation, vide letter dated 02.03.2015, Deputy
Commissioner, Barnala, directed the Collector to take action under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Pursuant thereto, sale deed was
impounded and by letter dated 10.03.2015, it was referred to the District
Collector, Barnala, to recover Rs.1,37,140/- as deficient stamp duty and
registration fee. Reference has also been made to a report of SDM, Barnala,
dated 17.03.2017 to submit that the sale deed has been registered under a
wrong code. Still further, it has been submitted that the petitioner was
proceeded against ex parte before the Collector vide impugned order dated
30.05.2017, Annexure P-2, who directed the recovery of deficient stamp
duty. Still further, it is the submission of the respondents that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed as it was barred by time.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
4. Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in
CWP-824-2018 titled as Amandeep Singh Versus The State of Punjab and
others decided on 05.12.2019, whereby while deciding a bunch of petitions,
this Court held as under:-
"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.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036610
2024:PHHC:036610
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."
5. This judgment has attained finality and was never challenged
by the State.
6. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed and impugned
orders, Annexures P-2 and P-4, passed by official respondents No.2 and 1,
respectively, are quashed.
14.03.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
