CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6877 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 09 ,2011 Anant Charitable Trust, Kurukshetra .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the action of the respondents, imposing stamp duty on the petitioner Charitable Trust, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. One Ashish had dedicated his land measuring 33 Kanals 9 marlas to the petitioner Charitable Trust, which is running a Kanya Gurukul School. A memoranda of dedication was executed on 12.7.2002 and the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner-Trust. The petitioner had raised a construction and the land is reflected in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6877 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: petitioner-Trust had also filed a civil suit, seeking declaration that it was the owner of the land. Ashish, impleaded as defendant, admitted the claim and accordingly Civil Court passed a decree on 1.2.2003. On 31.5.2004, the petitioner applied for registration of the decree and Sub Registrar (respondent No.4) registered the aforesaid decree without claiming any stamp duty. After a lapse of period of more than three years, the petitioner has been served a notice on 14.3.2007, alleging that the deed was registered on a lesser valuation of the property. The petitioner filed a response, contesting the same on various grounds. Respondent No.4, however, has made reference to Collector, Kurukshetra, respondent No.3, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition, pleading that the Sub Registrar could make reference only within a period of three years from the date of registration of the document and, thus, the action of respondent No.3 in assessing the stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,30,625/- being deficient is in violation of the legal provisions. Prayer accordingly is made for quashing the order. Respondents have filed reply, pointing out that affixation of stamp duty is mandatory in the cases of compromise decrees, where there is no blood relation between the litigants and the rights of the immovable properties are transferred. The Audit party has accordingly raised an objection, leading to passing of the impugned order. The plea that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing is also denied and it is, thus, pleaded that the writ petition be dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has raised a single fold CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6877 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: submission before me to urge that the jurisdiction to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 47-A of the Act, after expiry of period of limitation would not there and hence, the impugned order can not be sustained. In support, the counsel has placed reliance on Smt.Chand Kaur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 776 and Vikas Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 526. The Division Bench of this Court in the above-noted cases has taken a clear view that limitation for examining correctness of the value or consideration of a registered document by the Collector either on its own or on reference from Registrar is three years. It is observed that after expiry of three years of the registration of a document, the Collector has no jurisdiction to enter into an enquiry under Section 47-A of the Act. The Civil Court decree was registered on 21.2.2003 whereas show cause notice was issued on 14.3.2007 i.e. after the expiry of three years. As held in the above-noted cases, the limitation to recover deficiency in the stamp duty is three years from the date of registration of a document and accordingly the impugned order was beyond the period of limitation. That being the position of law, the impugned order in the present case can not be sustained. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order imposing the stamp duty and the order rejecting the appeal filed against the said order are quashed. March 09,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE