Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

at Annexure-2 of the Stamp Collector in U.V.M.C. No.464 of 2008 directing her to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fees, filed objection at Annexure-3 for giving an opportunity to her of being heard in the matter to contend that the sale deed was nothing but a void document. However, the Stamp Collector issued requisition to the Certificate Officer. Upon receipt of notice from the Certificate Officer, the petitioner filed objection at Annexure-5. However, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Instead, notice at Annxure-6 was issued for taking further action. It is earnestly contended that the petitioner has already been put to loss and harassment for the conduct of her vendor. Registered sale deed executed in her favour is a sham document which does not create or extinguish any right. The petitioner has availed no benefit out of it. The vendor never put the petitioner to possession over the land title of which he purported to have transferred to the petitioner. Though the sale deed has been stamped and registration fees have been paid on the same prior to registration, the document having been found to be void from the beginning, stamps used for execution of the sale deed are spoiled stamps. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court to avoid further harassment and loss. It is categorically contended that having come to know that the registered sale deed is a void document, as petitioner's vendor has no title over the land purported to have been sold therein, the petitioner has never claimed title or possession over the land and also is not capable of advancing any such claim in future. The registered sale deed being a void document, is to be treated to have been cancelled, and demand on the same is without jurisdiction.

5. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 4, learned Advocate General argued that sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner being an instrument purporting to convey title over the land by the vendor is chargeable to stamp duty in view of provisions under Sections 2(14), 3 and 17 and is subject to provisions under Section 47-A of the Act, to be dealt with when found to have been undervalued. In accordance with Section 47-A of the Act, the deed, after registration, was referred by the Registering Officer to the Collector for realization of deficit stamp duty and registration fees. The petitioner having not paid the stamp duty, proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act has been rightly instituted for realization of the deficit stamp duty and registration fees. It is not disputed by the learned Advocate General that the land purported to be transferred under the sale deed is recorded in the name of the State Government and the petitioner's vendor neither had title over the land, nor has acquired title in the meanwhile. It is also not disputed that petitioner's vendor has no scope to acquire title over the land in future. However, it is argued that even if the sale deed does not create any right in favour of the petitioner, and for all intent and purpose, the sale deed is a void document, validity of document has no concern with chargeability of stamp duty. The petitioner is to bear the expenses for stamp duty and registration fees. In this connection, learned Advocate General sought to derive assistance from an unreported and unauthenticated xerox copy of judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17148 of 2010 (M/S Aegis BPO Services Limited -vrs.- State of U.P. and others). In course of argument, learned Advocate General also contended that the impugned orders of undervaluation under the Act as well as for realization of stamp duty and registration fees under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act ought to have been assailed by the petitioner by resorting to statutory remedies available under the said Acts.

9. It is evident that even the stamps used for execution of void sale deed stands spoiled. For such contingency statutory remedy has been provided. The Act itself provides for allowance for spoiled stamps in certain cases. Section 49 (d)(1) of the Act provides for allowance for stamps used for an instrument executed by any person thereto which has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning. The relevant provision occurring under Chapter-V of the Act reads as follows:

10. There being statutory mandate for allowance by way of refund for spoiled stamps used on a void document, it would certainly be discriminatory, arbitrary and, consequently, without jurisdiction on the part of the Stamp Collector to insist upon payment of any further duty or fees on an instrument which has already been found to be void ab initio. Such action would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. In the present case, the petitioner was purported to be conferred with the status of buyer on execution of a sale deed which is being found to be void ab initio inasmuch as right purported to have been created by execution of the sale deed is never capable of being enforced in law. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled under law to be protected against payment of stamp duty and registration fees on a document which is void from the beginning. The sale deed being a void document be treated as cancelled. The Stamp Collector and the Certificate Officer have utterly failed to consider the petitioner's contention that no liability arises for payment of stamp duty on an instrument which has been found to be void ab initio. Therefore, proceedings in U.V.M.C. No.464 of 2008 and Certificate Case No.27 of 2014 are liable to be dropped and are, accordingly, dropped.