IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3041 of 2009 Date of decision: March 4, 2009. Punjab State through Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Bal Krishan & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby an appeal preferred by respondents No.1 & 2 against the order dated 3.1.2006 of the Collector, Gurdaspur, has been accepted and the demand regarding affixation of additional stamp duty/registration charges, raised against them, has been set aside. The controversy pertains to the registration of three documents, bearing No.6288, 6289 and 6290, which were executed and registered with the Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur on 18.1.1995. The audit party of the Accountant General, Punjab is alleged to have raised some objections regarding the deficiency of stamp duty affixed with these documents during the annual audit and based upon that, the Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur made a reference on 30.11.2002, i.e., after a period of over seven years. The objection was that the documents were mortgage deeds and not Security Bonds. The Collector accepted the reference directing respondents No.1 & 2 to affix additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1 lac on each document. The private respondents preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who remitted the matter to the Collector, Gurdaspur for a fresh decision on the point regarding limitation as well as nature of the documents. The Collector, Gurdaspur vide its order dated 3.1.2006 held that the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act were initiated within the limitation period and the subject documents were in fact mortgage deeds. Aggrieved, respondents No.1 & 2 preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the Appellate Authority- cum-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide the impugned order dated 1.2.2007. I have heard Learned State Counsel at some length and perused the impugned orders. I am of the considered view that the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority's observation that the proceedings initiated under the Indian Stamp Act against respondents No.1 & 2 were time-barred, appears to be correct. Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act enables the initiation of such proceedings within a period of three years from the date of registration of the document. In the present case, the Security Bonds were registered on 18.1.1995 whereas the reference was made to the Collector, Gurdaspur on 30.11.2002. There is no explanation on record for the above stated inordinate delay. Similarly, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the subject documents are the Security Bonds and not the mortgage deeds. The distinction drawn between the nature of the two sets of documents, as explained by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, is based upon correct appreciation of the nature and legal implications of the documents. No interference by this Court is, thus, called for. Dismissed. March 4, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge