THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus M/S. MAHAJAN SABHA, GURDASPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 21-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
M/S. MAHAJAN SABHA, GURDASPUR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Ac~ 1982: 
S.47A-Document registered in the name of a Co-operative Society, 
C without stamp duty and registration charges-After two years sub-Registrar 
making a reference to Collector-Consequently notice issued-Whether 
Authorities ceased to have power to take action calling upon the party to pay 
the stamp duty and registration charges-Whether ba"ed by limitation of two 
years prescribed under sub-S.(3)-No-Action taken by the authorities-Con-
sistent with the provisions of the Act. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A sale deed was executed in favour of the respondents for a con-
sideration of R. 2,50,000 in respect of the building situated in Gurdaspur. 
Since it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, no 
stamp duty was affixed and no registration charges were paid. When it was 
pointed out by the auditing authority, the Sub-Registrar had made a 
reference to the District Collector for collection of the stamp duty of Rs. 
32,350 and also registration fee of Rs. 1,000. The Collector issued notice 
to the respondent who filed his objections contending that since the 
document was registered two years prior to the issuance of the notice, the 
Collector ceased to have any power to take action calling upon the respon-
dents to pay the stamp duty and the registration fee. The Collector had 
rejected the contention and consequential orders were passed by the 
Additional District Judge and thereafter revision in the High Court ended 
in favour of the respondents. Hence this appeal by the State Government. 
The respondents contended that when the Collector initiated action 
under sub-section (2) of section 47-A, he gets jurisdiction only if the action 
is initiated within two years from the date of the registration of the 
instrument; that since it was sought to be revised after two years, the 
Collector is devoid of jurisdiction to take action under sub-section (3) of 
H section 47-A. 
526 
STATE v. MAHAJAN SABHA 
527 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1. The limitation of two years prescribed in sub- section (3) 
of S.47A of the Indian Stamp Act would apply only in a case where the 
Collector takes action either suo motu or on receipt of reference from the 
inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of the District ap-
pointed under the Registration Act, 1908 in whose jurisdiction the property 
A 
B 
or any portion thereof, which is the subject matter of the instrument, is 
situated. In case of initiation of the action by the aforesaid officers, the 
limitation of two years from the date of the registration of any instrument 
would arise. In other words, the limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) of 
section 47-A has no application to the case when a reference was made by C 
the Registering Authority, namely, the primary authority under sub-sec-
tion (1) of section 47-A. If all the three sub-sections are conjointly read, 
the inevitable conclusion would be that the action of the Collector taken 
under sub-sections (2) and (3) on reference under sub-section (1) is not 
controlled by the limitation of two years prescribed under sub-section (3). D 
Accordingly, in the instant case, the action initiated by the Collector was 
not barred by limitation. [531-A-D] 
2. Neither stamp duty nor registration fee has been paid on the value 
of the instrument mentioned in the document registered. Under the cir-
cumstances, the action taken by the authorities is clearly consistent with E 
the provisions of the Act. [531-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11508 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.94 of the Punjab & 
F 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2836 of 1994. 
U. N. Bachawat, Alakshendra Misra and G. K. Bansal for the 
Appellants. 
Ashok Grover and C.K. Mahajan for the Respondents 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
dated August 10, 1994 made in C.R. No. 2836/94 dismissing the revision 
filed by the State on 5.2.1990. When the respondents had gone to the High 
Court by way or writ petition, it had given liberty to the respondents to file 
an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was accordingly filed 
before the Additional District Judge at Gurdaspur. In C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.