Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

IV) As per the appellant, after registration of the instrument, Sub­ Registrar became functus officio; that Sub­Registrar had conducted the necessary enquiries and satisfied himself with the true and correct valuation, as per the prevalent market value, of the property and sufficiency of the stamp duty before and after registration/ delivery of the instrument; that the respondent Collector of Stamps never RCA 90/18 Vandana Saxena Vs. Collector of Stamps Page­2/9 conducted any enquiry, rather the respondent based its findings on the audit report of Sub­Registrar, which is no evidence or material to conclude that the gift deed was undervalued; that the respondent exceeded his power and authority under the relevant laws to impose the penalty; that the respondent has no power to impose penalty on the instrument, but his duty is to correctly assess the requisite valuation and stamp duty and that too, only when the instrument had been forwarded under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act; that in the litigation before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts the said instrument was never questioned or doubted and was rather given in evidence in civil suit no. 6379/2016 titled 'Vandana Saxena v. Shakti Saxena'; and that the proceedings conducted by the respondent is barred by law of limitation.