1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1571 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Santosh Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. AG. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) No rejoinder is intended to be filed. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. Advocate General and gone through the record. We are finally disposing of the writ petition with the consent of the parties after hearing them at length. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner purchased certain properties situated in Mandi District. As per sale deed, the price of the land was Rs. 70,000/-. Stamp duty was paid accordingly. Sale deed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 was executed in the year 2000. Thereafter audit was conducted and it was reported by the auditors that there was deficiency in stamp duty paid by the petitioner. A notice was issued, based on the audit note, to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar who had registered the sale deed. The Sub Registrar then directed the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs. 51,490/- on account of deficiency in the stamp duty. When the petitioner did not pay the money, reference was made to the Collector for recovering the money as arrears of land revenue and the Collector required Tehsildar, Recovery to effect the recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 51,490/-. 3. Petitioner has challenged the notice of recovery as also the action of the Sub Registrar of documents. 4. Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for dealing with a case where it is found that stamp duty paid by a party at the time of registration of documents, is deficient. As per this provision, it is the Collector who may pass the order either suo moto or on a reference by the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District in whose jurisdiction the property, which was the subject matter of transfer, is situate. In the present case, not only that the Collector was not approached by anybody to pass any order and the Collector did not proceed suo moto, but also no order has been passed by him for effecting the recovery. It was only the Sub Registrar who issued a notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 51,490/- 3 on account of deficiency in stamp duty, pointed out by the auditors and when the notice was not complied with, he made a reference for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue and then the Tehsildar, Recovery issued a notice for recovery of the amount. The entire procedure followed by the respondents is illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and hence nonest and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the notices issued to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar as also the Tehsildar, Recovery are quashed. This order shall, however, not debar the respondents from taking action, based on audit report, in accordance with the provision of Indian Stamp Act, 1988 or any other law applicable. In view of the disposal of main writ petition, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( R. B. Misra ), J ( Surjit Singh ), J. 15th December, 2008 (sl)