Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Ravindra Pharmacitical Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995P&H86, (1994)107PLR614, AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 86, 1994 (1) REVLR 566, 1994 REVLR 1 566, (1995) 1 CIVILCOURTC 414, (1995) 1 LANDLR 387, (1994) 2 RRR 332, (1994) 2 LJR 133, (1994) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 301, (1994) 2 PUN LR 614
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
ORDER A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Order (Annexure P-6) issued by Sub-Registrar, Pehowa, on August 10, 1992, is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, as having been issued without any authority of law. The petitioner had taken a loan from the bank-respondent No. 4. Subsequently the bank asked the petitioner to furnish additional security that a document was prepared and submitted to the Sub-Registrar, Pehowa, for registration. It was duly registered. Subsequently this notice (Annexure P-6) was issued, calling upon the petitioner to pay deficiency of Rs. 29,000/ - on the aforesaid deed.
2. On notice of motion having been issued, written statement was filed on behalf of the official respondents, inter alia, asserting that the said deed was a mortgage-deed and required more stamp duty, for which notice was issued. Maintainability of the writ petition was also disputed.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that after a document is registered, the Sub-Registrar ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. It is only before registering the document that for the reasons to be recorded, the Sub-Registrar could refuse to register it under S. 71 of the Registration Act. Such an order could be appealed before the Registrar under S.72 of the Act.
4. Apart from that, after registration of the document, the Sub-Registrar could not re-open the matter. It is entirely different as to whether the document was deficiently stamped and could be used as an evidence in a court or not. The Additional Advocate General, Haryana, referred to the provisions of Sees. 31 to 35 of Indian Stamp Act to support his contention that the Collector could determine about the exact amount of stamp duty payable on a document. In our view, no help could be sought from provisions of Sees. 31, 33 and 25 of the Indian Stamp Act, as the Collector has not so far taken any action under these provisions. We may observe that such an action can only be taken by the Collector if his opinion is sought by any person by producing a document as to how much stamp-duty is payable on such a document. We take it that in the facts of the present case, after registration of the document the same is with the petitioner and he has not approached the Collector for his opinion under Sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act. No provision of law has been cited before us to chothe Sub-Registrar with power to issue notice for recovery of stamp-duty, if any, after registration of the document. While allowing the writ petition, we quash the notice Annexure P-6.
5. Petition allowed.