THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 27814 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.14 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for certain relief, on the strength of an agreement of sale, dated 09.08.2001. The Court found that the document was not properly stamped. Therefore, it referred the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, 2nd respondent herein for impounding. Initially, the 2nd respondent returned the document, stating that the land belongs to Government. The trial Court, however, referred the document for the second time. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 28.11.2008 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,55,510/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.35,54,100/- towards 10 times penalty. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. He contends that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to impound the document and the amount was fixed without issuing any notice to him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Two aspects arise for consideration in this writ petition. The first is about the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to impound the document and the second is about the procedure adopted in arriving at the stamp duty and penalty. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) is a comprehensive enactment, providing for the payment of stamp duty on various documents and transactions. Whenever it is noticed that a document is not properly stamped, the authority or person dealing with the document is required to ensure that the proper stamp duty is collected. In certain cases, the authorities are conferred with the power to take necessary steps and in others, they have to refer the matter to the District Collector, for taking necessary corrective measures. Sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Act deal with the impounding of documents. In all these provisions, reference is made only to the Collector as the authority to impound the document. The word ‘Collector’ is defined in 2(9) of the Act. A perusal of the same discloses that it is only the Collector of a District and not the Collector in the ordinary parlance or the one defined under the General Clauses Act, that answers the description of the Collector. When the Act in clear terms directs that it is only the District Collector that can impound the document, any other authority cannot undertake such activity. In G.Ramesh vs. Revenue Divisional officer[1], this Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not competent to exercise such powers. Coming to the second aspect, the value of the property was arrived at by the 2nd respondent on his own accord without any notice or intimation to the petitioner. Since it is the petitioner that is to be burdened with the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, it is but natural that he must be put on notice. Following the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1609 of 2005, through order, dated 11.09.2008, held that an aggrieved party is entitled to be heard before a document presented by him is impounded. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aide. It is directed that the process of impounding shall be undertaken by the District Collector and the petitioner shall be issued notice before arriving at the market value of the property. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.01.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 27814 of 2008 Date: 23.01.2009 JSU [1] 2006(6) ALD 136