1986 (2) TMI 344 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Sub-Registrar to impound the sale-certificate.
2. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to order the recovery of stamp duty.
3. Applicability of Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code regarding stamp duty exemption.
4. Applicability of Section 29(f) of the Stamp Act to the sale-certificate.
5. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar after filing the sale-certificate in Book No. 1.
6. Authority of the Collector to impound the instrument and demand stamp duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Sub-Registrar to Impound the Sale-Certificate:
The petitioner argued that the Sub-Registrar, Jaora, was not competent to impound the sale-certificate and send it to the Sub-Divisional Officer for recovery of stamp duty. The court noted that the Sub-Registrar had entered the sale-certificate in Book No. 1 by mistake without verifying the payment of stamp duty. The Sub-Registrar later realized the mistake and informed the SDO about the recovery of the stamp duty. The court concluded that the Sub-Registrar's action was a bona fide mistake and did not invalidate the process.

2. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to Order Recovery of Stamp Duty:
The petitioner contended that the SDO's order dated 14-4-78 (Annexure-C) was without jurisdiction as the reference by the Sub-Registrar was illegal. The court held that the SDO acted within his jurisdiction to demand the stamp duty from the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner had initially taken shelter behind a promise allegedly made by the Sales-tax Officer regarding the non-payment of stamp duty, which was not a valid defense.

3. Applicability of Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code Regarding Stamp Duty Exemption:
The petitioner argued that the sale-certificate issued under Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was exempt from stamp duty. The court clarified that Section 147 merely prescribes a procedure for the recovery of government dues and does not exempt the sale-certificate from stamp duty. The payment of stamp duty is governed by the Stamp Act, and there was no scope for interference on this count.

4. Applicability of Section 29(f) of the Stamp Act to the Sale-Certificate:
The petitioner contended that Section 29(f) of the Stamp Act, which specifies that the purchaser bears the expenses of the proper stamp, was not applicable. The court disagreed, stating that Section 29(f) clearly indicates that the purchaser of the property to which the sale-certificate relates must bear the stamp duty expenses. The court also noted the absence of any repugnancy between Section 29(f) of the Stamp Act and Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

5. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar After Filing the Sale-Certificate in Book No. 1:
The petitioner argued that once the Sub-Registrar entered the sale-certificate in Book No. 1, he became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Collector. The court noted that the Sub-Registrar's entry was a bona fide mistake, and the petitioner could not claim relief based on this mistake. The court emphasized that the mistake did not exempt the petitioner from paying the stamp duty.

6. Authority of the Collector to Impound the Instrument and Demand Stamp Duty:
The petitioner argued that the Collector could not impound the instrument or demand stamp duty without impounding the sale-certificate. The court held that the Collector acted within his authority to demand the stamp duty. The court referenced Section 3 of the Stamp Act, which makes the certificate of sale chargeable to stamp duty, and concluded that the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders passed by the SDO (Annexure-C) and the Revenue Board (Annexure-D). The court affirmed that the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty on the sale-certificate and that the actions of the Sub-Registrar and the SDO were within their respective jurisdictions. The petitioner's reliance on the Sub-Registrar's mistake was not a valid ground for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of Section 147 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and Section 29(f) of the Stamp Act. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the counsel's fee was set at Rs. 250.