JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:— After hearing counsel for all parties, we grant special leave in these two petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally by this common order as the point involved is a common one. We are dealing with the matter at some length as it raises certain important aspects of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 which are likely to come up for consideration frequently.

2. Smt. Shanti Devi, the petitioner in SLP No. 15093 of 1989, was the highest bidder at an auction sale of house property bearing No. A-205, Defence Colony, New Delhi conducted on 29-2-88 by the Tax Recovery Officer (T.R.O.) for realising the income-tax dues of its owner. Her bid was accepted and the sale confirmed on 13-4-1988. On 14-4-1988 a certificate of sale was issued by the T.R.O. to the petitioner. Under the relevant rules, a copy of the certificate of sale should have been endorsed to the Sub Registrar but it was actually sent to the Sub Registrar on 12-5-88. The petitioner in SLP No. 138 of 1990 purchased property bearing No. 112-113, Gautam Nagar, Delhi at an auction conducted by the Income -tax department. A certificate of sale in their favour was issued on 23-5-1988. A copy of the sale certificate was forwarded by the T. R.O. to the Sub-Registrar.

3. The purchasers thereafter attempted to get the property registered by the Sub-Registrar in their names. The Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps did not accede to this request apparently on the ground that this could not be done unless stamp duty was paid on the certificate of sale. On the petitioners request, the T. R. O. also addressed a couple of letters to the Sub-Registrar and Collector which may be referred to here. With his letter dated 12-5-88 to the former, the T.R.O. enclosed an extract from the Tax Recovery Inspectors Manual issued by the Income-tax department which reads as follows:-

"After confirmation of sale of immovable property a certificate in form ITCP-20 will be issued. The original of this sale certificate is liable for stamp duty and a further duty of Rs. 4.50 is also chargeable on the copy of the sale certificate to be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar. These charges (which may vary from State to State) are to be borne by the auction-parchaser. The original sale certificate thus issued will be the title for the property and it has the same value as a sale deed and it does not require registration by the purchaser. Thus the auction-purchaser is saved expenses of registration etc. This office itself will send a copy of the sale certificate for registration to the concerned Sub-Registrar for making necessary entries in his registers."

(Underlining ours)

The Collector of Stamps was addressed directly by the T.R.O. on 29-9-83 in relation to the Gautam Nagar property. In that letter the T.R.O. stated that he had received legal advice that no stamp duty was payable on the certificate of sale. The attention of the Collector was drawn to the fact that a copy of the sale certificate had been sent to the SubRegistrar as required under Rule 21 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules ITCP rules - which runs as follows:-

"21. Every Tax Recovery Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold under the second schedule shall send a copy of such certificate to the Registering Officer concerned under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (18 of 1908) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate."

The Collector was requested to inform the Sub-Registrar accordingly to make necessary entries in the registers regarding the auction sale of the above immovable property on the basis of the copy of sale certificate sent to him.

4. Apparently, no further action was taken by the Sub-Registrar or Collector in the matter and, hence, each of the petitioners applied to the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The T R.O., the Col