Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 Date of Order: 10.02.2011 Manohar Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate, for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 and Civil Revision No.2436 of 2003 as they involve adjudication of identical points. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003. The controversy in these revisions relates to the powers of the Registrar/Sub-Registrar of documents, the Collector and the Appellate Authority exercising powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as modified by the State of Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before proceeding to refer a matter relating to undervaluation of an instrument to the Collector, the registering officer is required, by Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 -2- virtue of Section 47-A (1) of the Act, to pass an order recording a prima facie opinion that the instrument is undervalued. A perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Registrar, discloses the absence of any such opinion much less reference to any cogent material that led the Sub-Registrar to believe that the property is under valued. It is further argued that before deciding a reference received from the registering officer, the Collector is required by Section 47(A)(2) of the Act to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to hold an enquiry. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector, reveals that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity much less a reasonable opportunity. Reliance for these arguments is placed upon State of Punjab ect. vs. Mahabir Singh etc., AIR 1996 SC 2994, Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana and others 2001(1) PLJ 364, Lalita Devi v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 653 and Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 249. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders, the statutory provisions of the Act and the precedents cited by counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, purchased Plot No.118 measuring 188 square yards for construction of a Shop-cum-Flat, situated at New Grain Market, Near Sugar Mill, Rohtak for Rs.2,21,000/-. The Sub-Registrar, Rohtak, registered the document but on Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 -3- 22.03.2000 passed an order, under Section 47-A, of the Act, which reads as follows:- "On the above noted subject, Registered Sale Deed No.8887/1 dated 9.3.2000, which is registered by this office, the investigation has been done in respect to the land sold by this document according to which, the document has been found to be registered under valued. Report is submitted as under:- "The Stamp Auditor has intimated that above document has been registered under valued and the land mentioned in the document is of New Anaj Mandi, where the prices are quite high. Therefore, in the registration of this document, large scale bungling of stamp duty." Therefore, the original document/photocopy is sent with a request to take appropriate action under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act assessing the value of the property sold and request you to recover deficient stamp/registration fee." The matter, thereafter came up for consideration before the Collector, who vide order dated 13.02.2002 held on the Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 -4- basis of Collector rate, that the value of the land is Rs.4,72,500/-. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to deposit stamp duty of Rs.38,983/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, which was dismissed on 23.10.2002. A perusal of the impugned orders, particularly the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Rohtak and the Collector, Rohtak, reveal an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Section 47- A of the Act, empowers the registering officer where he has "reasons to believe" that the property is not correctly valued to make a reference to the Collector. The power so exercised, is quasi judicial in nature but is more often than not exercised in a ministerial manner. The order passed by the Sub-Registrar, Rohtak, does refer to the investigation carried out, the nature of the audit objection etc. At this stage, it would be appropriate to sound a note of caution. It is not necessary for a Sub-Registrar to use the words "reasons to believe" but it is necessary that reasons assigned must be prima-facie clear and cogent. Mere reference to an enquiry or an audit report without their particulars does not meet the statutory requirement of Section 47-A. The Collector also committed an error of jurisdiction as he proceeded to decide the matter in violation of Section 47-A(2). The Collector did not conduct a detailed enquiry or afford any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence. Section 47-A(2) requires the Collector to grant a “reasonable Civil Revision No.2435 of 2003 -5- opportunity” and hold an enquiry. In support of the above conclusions, reference is made to State of Punjab vs. Mahabir Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2994, Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana and others 2001(1) PLJ 364, Lalita Devi v. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 653 and Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 249. In the absence of any opportunity to rebut the allegation that the sale deed is under valued, I have no option but to allow the petitions, set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the Sub- Registrar, Rohtak, to consider and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with Section 47-A (1) of the Act. Parties are directed to appear before the Sub- Registrar, Rohtak, on 28.03.2011. February 10, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE