Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State And Anr. vs Sucha Singh on 9 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR572
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
ORDER Viney Mittal, J.
1. The order dated May 3, 1995 passed by the learned District Judge has been impugned by the State of Haryana through the present petition. The aforesaid order was passed by the learned District Judge on an appeal filed by Sucha Singh against the order dated April 15, 1994 passed by the Collector, Fatehabad exercising his powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short, 'the Act').
2. The sale-deed was registered on June 25, 1991 in favour of Sucha Singh who had purchased the land measuring 30 kanals 8 marlas from Bhagwan Dass, vendor for a price of Rs. 90,000/-. The Sub-Registrar made a reference to the Collector in terms of Section 47-A of the Act. A notice was issued to the vendee and an enquiry was held in the matter. It was held that sale-deed had been undervalued and the sale price in the sale-deed was shown less by Rs. 1,76,000/-. Consequently, the deficiency in the stamp fee was ordered to be recovered from the aforesaid Sucha Singh. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 22,000/- was also imposed.
3. The aforesaid order dated April, 15, 1994 was challenged by Sucha Singh by filing an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge re-examined the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the conclusion drawn by the Collector that the sale-deed had been undervalued was wholly justified and the aforesaid order had been passed in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the vendee. Consequently, the aforesaid part of the order passed by the Collector was upheld. However, with regard to imposition of penalty of Rs. 22,000/-, the learned District Judge held that the aforesaid imposition of penalty was not sustainable and consequently the said order qua the imposition of penalty was set aside.
4. The State of Haryana has now chosen to approach this Court through the present revision petition.
5. I have heard Shri Rajiv Kwatra, Senior DAG, Haryana and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
6. The learned District Judge has clearly noticed that there was no provision under which penalty of Rs. 22,000/- could be imposed. Nothing has been shown that the aforesaid observation made by the learned District Judge suffers from any infirmity, consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.