CR No.5428 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5428 of 2004 Date of Decision: 5.08.2009 Jogi Ram ..Petitioner Vs. Tehsildar Narnaund & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: None. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 25.11.2003 and 31.1.2003 passed by the Tehsildar, Narnaund and Sub-Tehsildar Narnaund, District Hisar vide which petitioner was directed to appear before the Tehsildar and make good the deficiency in registration fee deposited by him. Facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that Hira Singh son of Sukhi Ram son of Jasram resident of village Pali,Tehsil Narnaund District Hisar was owner in possession of the land in dispute. On 26.7.2001 Hira Singh executed a release deed in favour of the petitioner being his cousin brother and got it registered with Joint registrar, Narnaund CR No.5428 of 2004 2 on the same day. At the time of registration no objection was raised. In pursuance to the release deed mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 23.8.2001 and even at that point of time no objection was raised regarding status of the parties or that of land in dispute. It was on 31.1.2003 that a notice was issued to the petitioner mentioning therein that stamp duty was deficient to the tune of Rs.2,46,527/- (Rupees two lacs forty six thousand five hundred and twenty seven only) and directions were issued to deposit the amount within one week failing which strict action was threatened. Reply to the notice was sent by the petitioner wherein a positive stand was taken that the Registrar or his subordinate authorised to register a document under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 could only deny registration if he found any lacuna in the document like shortage of stamp duty etc and that once any document is registered by him, he becomes functus officio and cannot question the registration. On 25.11.2003 Tehsildar, Narnaund issued summons for production of the petitioner along with Rs.2,46,527/- (Rupees two lacs forty six thousand five hundred and twenty seven only) in the Tehsil office. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P.4 i.e. notice issued by Sub Tehsildar, Narnaund as also the order Annexure P.6 vide which the petitioner was summoned by Tehsildar to appear before him. It is the case of the petitioner that impugned notice as well as order of summoning are patently without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s Ravindra CR No.5428 of 2004 3 Pharmaceutical Vs. State of Haryana 1994 PLJ 265 wherein this court has been pleased to lay down that Sub Registrar does not have the jurisdiction to issue notice for recovery of stamp duty. The Sub Registrar ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter and cannot reopen the matter, after the registration of a document. The Division Bench of this court again in the case of Raghbir Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 861 has been pleased to lay down that no officer other than the Collector is competent to pass an order under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of deficiency in stamp duty. The impugned orders are without jurisdiction. In view of the law laid down by this court the impugned orders Anexures P.4 and P.6 cannot be sustained being without jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P.4 and P.6 are ordered to be quashed. 5.08. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge