Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vikas And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 18 January, 2022
The Division Bench in Vikas's case (supra) has held as under:-
Bachhitar Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 26 September, 2002
7.12.2005. It is well settled that the communication of the order alone
confer on a paper the status of an order as has been postulated
by Article 166 of the Constitution. The aforementioned provision was
interpreted by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 Supreme Court
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 4 April, 2003
395. In that case the Constitution Bench had held that till an order is
communicated it would not assume the character of executive action. A
similar view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 413.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument."
Abhinav Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 7 November, 2003
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein would
contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar while
registering the instrument did not impound the sale deed nor was any reference made
to the Collector at his own instance. The sale deed was handed over to the petitioners
after registration of the same. It is also argued that there are judgments to the effect
that the reference can be made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector immediately
after registration of an instrument or in the course of registration. It is submitted that
in the judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2001 (1) RCR
(Civil) 91, a reference had been made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector after a
period of 8 days and it was held to be not in accordance with law.
Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Iqbal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others --Respondents on 30 September, 2010
9. The argument raised by the petitioners while relying upon the judgment
rendered in Iqbal Singh's case that the audit party is not authorized to assess and
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2022 23:40:17 :::
CWP No.21097 of 2019(O&M) -8-
determine the nature of any document or the stamp duty payable thereon has no
force, as in that case the document executed in respect of the property was the
relinquishment deed on which stamp duty was not payable and not the sale deed as in
the instant case. Therefore, the ratio decidendi culled out in Iqbal Singh is not
applicable to the present case.
Seema vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 January, 2016
In Seema's case (supra), the sale deed
was registered on 19.07.2012 and the Sub Registrar made reference to the Revenue
Officer-cum-Collector, Karnal on 21.09.2012 i.e. within a period of less than three
months. But in the instant case, reference was made by the Sub Registrar to the
Collector on receipt of the audit report on 03.10.2013. Pursuant to the said reference,
the petitioners herein vide notice dated 28.03.2014 were called upon to appear in
proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bathinda,
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2022 23:40:17 :::
CWP No.21097 of 2019(O&M) -7-
which notice was well beyond the period of three years.
1