IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3317 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.11.2009 Mohinder Singh and another .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Attariwala, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Sangrur, whereby they have been directed to make good the deficiency in stamp duty charges and registration fee on the sale deed dated 14.5.2004, as well as the order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissing their appeal against the afore-stated order of the Collector, Sangrur. Shorn of the details, it may be noticed that respondent No.4, C.R. No.3317 of 2009 (O&M) 2 who is unmarried real sister of the petitioners, executed a sale deed dated 14.5.2004 selling her share in the agricultural land to the petitioners. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the petitioners affixed the registration fee @ 1% of the sale consideration. The said registration fee was affixed by them on the assumption that they are entitled to the benefit of the Government of Punjab Notification dated 21.12.2001. It would be apposite to reproduce the afore-stated Government notification which reads as follows:- “No.S.O.66/C.A.2/1899/S.9/2001.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Central Act No.2 of 1999), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to remit, with effect from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette, the stamp duty chargeable in case of transaction of transfer by an owner of agricultural land and rural residential property to his Class-I heirs (as defined in Schedule under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956), during his life time. However, where the owner of the property is unmarried and/or is issueless, this concession would also be available in the matter of the transfer of property in favour of his brother, sister, brother's son, brother's daughter, sister's son and sister's daughter as well provided that he has no Class-I heir: Provided that this remission would be applicable to rural agricultural land and rural residential property outside the Lal-Lakir only: Provided further that the Registering Officers will also be required to ensure that the factum of relation of the C.R. No.3317 of 2009 (O&M) 3 transferor with the person to whom the property is transferred is fully described in the transfer deed itself so that the transferor is duly made liable for concealment of facts, if any, and the pedigree table clearly reflecting Class- I heirs of the owner of the property will also be got attached to the sale deed duly certified by the village Lambardar. As at present, pedigree table (Shajra Nasab) would also figure on the 'Part Sarkar' and the 'Part Sarkar' of the mutation sheet. It would be mandatory for the Revenue Officer(s) concerned to decide the mutation concerning these transactions in the open village assembly, after reasonable advance notice and due publicity and also to get the signatures/thumb impressions of at least five respectable residents of the village (indicating their status) on the mutation sheet itself as a proof of the mutation having been sanctioned actually in the village itself.” (emphasis applied) The Audit Party raised an objection against the affixation of the registration fee @ 1% by the petitioners and based upon it, the District Collector, Sangrur issued notice and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 directing that the stamp duty charges to the tune of Rs.38,790/- is also recoverable from the petitioners. The petitioners went in appeal which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide the impugned order dated 21.1.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. In my considered view, the petitioners are not entitled to the C.R. No.3317 of 2009 (O&M) 4 benefit of Government Notification dated 21.12.2001 in view of the admitted fact that their mother, who is a Class-I heir of their unmarried sister, is still alive. The benefit of the notification could be admissible to the petitioners provided that there is no Class-I (alive) heir of their unmarried sister. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned action has been taken after 2 years of the registration of the sale deed and is time barred, too merits rejection. Section 47-A (3) as amended by the Punjab Act No.7 of 1994, of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, expressly provided that the Collector may, suo-moto, or on receipt of a reference, can take action regarding recovery of the deficiency in stamp duty charges or the registration fee, within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instrument. The impugned action has been admittedly taken within a period of three years. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. 19-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE