Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar Mittal And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 31 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)110PLR411
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. The petitioners who are small scale industrialists were allotted shed No. E-20 and E-ll in Industrial Area, Focal Point, Bhatinda on a long lease. The lease deeds were executed by the Punjab State Small Scales Industries Corporation, Chandigarh and they were registered at the office of Sub Registrar, Bhatinda. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 namely the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Additional Collector, Bhatinda directed the petitioners to appear before him on 2,7.1981 on the ground that the stamp duty and the registration fee were not properly levied on the lease deeds and when the petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 on 16.7.1981, he asked both the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2922/- as stamp duty and Rs. 978/- as registration fee, otherwise the amount would be recovered as arrears of the land revenue. Respondent No. 2 also issued a notice to petitioner No. 1 on 26.6,1981 directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 2922/- as stamp duty and Rs. 978/- as registration fee. A similar notice was also issued to petitioner No. 2. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the notices issued to them demanding the deficit stamp duty and the registration fee on the lease deeds which have been executed in the year 1978.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once the lease-deed is registered, there is no provision in the Stamp Act which enables the authorities to recover the deficit stamp duty and registration fee. He has further contended that it is not a case where recovery was ordered by the Collector under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (for short : 'the Act'). Learned Assistant. Advocate General, Punjab contended that during audit it was found that the lease deeds were not stamped according to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, the notices have been issued to recover the requisite stamp duty and registration fee.
3. There is no dispute that the lease-deeds had been executed and registered by the Punjab State Small Industries Corporation in favour of the petitioners on 17.7.1978 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhatinda. Once the lease-deeds were registered, they can only be impounded, if they are found to. be insufficiently stamped by the Collector under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. There is no provision in the Indian Stamp Act apart from Section 40, to recover deficit stamp duty. The registering authority is not empowered to call upon either the executant or beneficiary to pay the deficit stamp duty, subsequent to and long after the registration of the document. After registration of the document, the Registering Authority becomes functus officio. The provisions of Chapter (4) of the Indian Stamp Act will apply to the document not duly stamped. Under the provisions of Chapter (4) of the Stamp Act, if document not properly stamped, is produced before any authority, the same may be received in evidence only after imposing of the penalty. Apart from the provisions of Chapter (4), there is no provision for recovery of deficit stamp duty. Therefore, the notices issued to the petitioners under Section 68 of the Punjab Revenue Act for recovery of stamp duty and registration fee are not justified.
4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the notices issued under Annexure P2 are hereby quashed but this order will not come in the way of the Collector to impound the document under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. R.M.S. Petition allowed.