The main legal point established is that the Sub-Registrar must refer any instrument for determination of property value immediately after registration, and the Collector's authority to initiate action for deficient stamp duty is limited to a period of three years from the date of registration.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.4,35,000/- along with interest @12% from the date of registration of the sale deed till the deposit of the amount towards deficient stamp duty and registration fee pertaining to sale deed registered on 17.05.2013, besides order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, affirming the order of the Collector, in appeal.

2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- vide registered sale deed No.415 dated 17.05.2013. A sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Sardoolgarh and at that time, the sale deed was not impounded on account of inadequate stamp duty. The sale deed was returned to the petitioners after registration. The office of the Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts), Internal Audit Institute (Revenue), Bathinda sent an audit memo to Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Sardoolgarh pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.4,35,000/- towards deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale deed in question. On the basis of the audit report, the Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar made a reference vide letter No.25/R.K dated 03.05.2016 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, while exercising the power of Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, issued a notice dated 23.05.2016 to the petitioners regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit.

3. In the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, a reply was filed, taking a plea that the stamp duty had correctly been affixed, however, the Collector by impugned order dated 28.10.2016 agreed with the objection raised by the audit party and directed that deficiency of stamp/registration fee be recovered from the vendee along with interest @12% per annum. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed, which has led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar while registering the instrument did not impound the sale deed nor was any reference made to the Collector at his own instance. The sale deed was handed over to the petitioners after registration of the same. It is also argued that there are judgments to the effect that the reference can be made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector immediately after registration of an instrument or in the course of registration. It is submitted that in the judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 91, a reference had been made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector after a period of 8 days and it was held to be not in accordance with law. It is also argued that in the case of Iqbal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 365, it has been held that an audit party is not authorized under any provisions of the Indian Stamp Act to assess and determine the nature of any document or the stamp duty payable thereon.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent state would submit that on the basis of audit report, it had been found that there was deficient stamp duty affixed on the sale deed that was executed on 17.05.2013 and pursuant to that, notice was issued to the petitioners herein to pay the additional amount of Rs.4,35,000/- towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have pe