CWP No. 4142 of 1985 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4142 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.3.2011 Jatinder Kumar and others ...Appellants vs The Collector and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Babbar Khan, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order (Annexure P-1) and the summons (Annexure P-2) vide which amount of ` 6,250/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioners on account of less stamp duty annexed at the time of registration of sale-deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though initially the petitioners had puchased 29 kanals 16 marlas land vide two sale-deeds dated 27.2.1983 and 16.12.1983 on payment of amount agreed between the parties. The land was part of the total land measuring 59 kanals 11 marlas owned by Raj Kumar and Vidya Sagar. Raj Kumar sold his half share of the land to Jit Singh son of Bachan Singh and half share to Baljit Singh son of Bachan Singh. The petitioners purchased 14 kanals 18 marlas of land from Jit Singh son of Bachan Singh whereas the other 14 kanals 18 marlas from Baljit Singh son of Bachan Singh vide aforesaid two sale- deeds. On account of there being certain discrepancies regarding mentioning of shares in the sale-deeds at the initial stage, the correction have been carried out later on. The petitioners were asked to pay additional stamp duty of ` 6,250/-, which have been impugned in the present appeal. CWP No. 4142 of 1985 (2) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the alleged amount of deficient stamp duty sought to be recovered from the petitioners only issuing notice of recovery, but prior thereto no notice was issued requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why additional stamp duty be not recovered from them. He further submitted that in fact the petitioners are not required to pay any deficient stamp duty considering the fact that the aforesaid sale of land in favour of the petitioners was preempted by Vidya Sagar by filing civil suit which was decreed on 3.12.1984 and the land thereafter stood transferred in the name of Vidya Sagar. If there is any deficiency in the stamp duty, only Vidya Sagar would be liable to make that good. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the demand placing reliance upon Section 159 of the Indian Registration Manual providing for demand of duty for registration of subsequent document. As according to him it was not a case of payment of deficient stamp duty but was for payment of stamp duty for registration of supplementary document. He further submitted that the petitioners being the vendee at the time of registration of sale-deed and for the subsequent document he is required to make good any deficiency in the stamp duty. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. The case set up by the petitioners is that even if some stamp duty was required to be recovered from them, they should have been served with a notice to show cause before a demand therefor was raised. In the present case directly a recovery notice was issued by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade on 14.3.1985. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that the sale of property in favour of the petitioners was pre- empted by Vidya Sagar vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.1984 and as a necessary consequence Vidya Sagar must have paid the entire sale consideration paid by the petitioners including all the expenses incurred by them. The deficient stamp duty if any is also to be recovered from him. CWP No. 4142 of 1985 (3) Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, provides for dealing with the instruments which are registered but in the opinion of the registering authority or the Inspector General of Registration are deficient in stamp duty. It provides for issuance of a show cause notice to the parties concerned. After giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and holding an enquiry, the value of the property and the deficient amount payable by such person, is determined. In the present case there is nothing on record which could show that any enquiry was held or any notice was ever served upon the petitioners before determining this amount of ` 6,250/- on account of deficient stamp duty required to be paid by the petitioners. On account of violation of principles of natural justice the only option available with this court is to quash the demand notice while giving opportunity to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the effected parties. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the demand notice against the petitioners is set aside, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners and/ or against Vidya Sagar who had pre-empted the sale of property in question in favour of the petitioners vide decree of the civil court dated 3.12.1984. Disposed of. 4.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge