JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the appeal filed by fee respondent against the order dated 8.1.1992 passed by fee Collector, Thanesar, directing fee respondent herein to deposit a stamp duty of Rs. 5,33,120/- (five lac thirty three thousand one hundred twenty) with the Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M). It was further directed that in case of failure to deposit, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The brief tacts of the case are as under:
Vasika No. 959 dated 16.10.1990 favouring Narain Dass s/o Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of Taraori, Tehsil and Distt. Karnal valued of Rs. 6,91,398/- was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M), Kurukshetra. The Accountant General, Haryana, in his audit Note for the year 1990-91 has pointed out stamp evasion of Rs. 5,33,120/-. This vasika is concerned with Solvent Industry Shahabad (M). Mr. Narain Dass vendee has purchased this Solvent. Industry against Rs. 44.31 lacs in open bid. But in the sale -deed the price of plant and machinery has been excluded and the Registry of building and land has been executed against Rs. 6,21,398/-. The stamp duty levied is on Rs. 6,91,398/- instead of Rs. 44.31 lacs. Thus stamp duty evaded on Rs. 34,39,602/-. The total stamp duty on the total property was due on 41.31 lacs it is mentioned in the sale-deed. The vendor mentioned receipt of total amount in the vasika. The Accountant General, Haryana, has pointed out evasion of Rs. 5,33,120/- on vasika. The Registrar, Shahabad (M) issued notice to fee vendee for the recovery of Rs. 5,33,120/-. But the vendee has failed to deposit the amount. This is case of less stamp duty. Moreover, fee Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M) referred this case to this office. Case pertaining to this Vasika for the recovery of stamp duty under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Clause 47-A(2). The Sub-Registrar Shahabad directed the vendee to appear in the Court.
2. The learned Collector by referring to the provisions of Section 2(10) of the India Stamp Act read with Section 2(6) of Indian Registration Act, 1980 came to the conclusion that stamp duty was required to be paid on the total value of the property amounting to Rs. 44.31 lacs and, therefore, answered the reference under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the ‘Act’) in favour of the petitioner herein and against the respondent.
3. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra came to the conclusion feat the order passed by fee Collector was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act under which the Collector was to exercise quasi judicial power. In order to come to this conclusion the reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chamkaur Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. . The learned Appellate Authority further came to the conclusion that there was no evidence produced on record by the Sub-Registrar to determine the stamp duty on the document registered.
4. It may be noticed that no reason whatsoever was given by the Collector by assessing the stamp duty as to how the bifurcation made by the Liquidator attached to the Delhi High Court at the time of sale was bad.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contents that the learned Appellate authority was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the learned Collector as the same was based on exercise of the powers conferred under Section 47-A of the Act and the Collector had complied with the principle of natural justice as opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that once the sale-deed has been executed qua the factory which was sold, the machinery was to be taken as immovable property and, therefore, no fault can be found with the assessment as made by the learned Collector.
7. Mr. Arvind Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, contends that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority does not suffer from any error. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is in consonance with the settled law.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2004-1) 136 P.L.R. 545, to contend that the order passed by the Collector was patently without jurisdiction inasmuch as the notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar to claim additional stamp duty which could not have been done. Para 3 of the Judgment in the said read as under:
The petitioners have challenged the impugned notice on the ground that it is barred by time and is also ultra vires to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as inserted by Haryana Act No. 37 of 1973 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 and also on the ground that respondent No. 3 does not have the jurisdiction to take action under Section 47-A of the Act.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalita Devi v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (2001-2) 128 P.L.R. 23 to contend that the Collector could make determination of the value of the property only after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and after holding appropriate inquiry.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that in the present case no opportunity of leading evidence was given to the respondent and the order was merely based on the audit objection raised by the audit party.
11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties. I find no force in this revision petition as reading of the facts mentioned by the Collector in the order itself shows that the notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar to initiate the proceedings which was prima facie without jurisdiction. Consequently, it has to be held that the Appellate Authority was right in setting aside the order passed by the Collector.
No merit.
Dismissed.