JUDGMENT :

(Jaishree Thakur, J.)

The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,00,500/- 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 22.09.2010 and the order dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure P5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, affirming the order of the Collector.

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 310 square yards equivalent to 6 biswas situated at Patti Mehna, Bathinda as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03. A sum of Rs.93,000/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Bathinda 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, Bathinda pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.2,00,500/- 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.871/RK dated 16.08.2013 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.2,00,500/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Collector issued notices under Section 47-A of the Indian STAMP ACT dated 24.12.2013, 10.04.2014 and 09.11.2015 to the petitioners regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit, resulting in the impugned orders.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar, Bathinda 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 thereafter, that notices were issued by the Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, asking for deficient stamp duty and such notices were issued beyond the period of limitation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits 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 22.09.2010 and pursuant to that, notices were issued to the petitioners herein to pay the additional amount of Rs.2,00,500/- towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings of the case.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The sale deed came to be registered on 22.09.2010 by the Sub-Registrar but at that point of time, he did not impound the sale deed nor did he send a reference to the Collector as envisaged under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian STAMP ACT , as applicable to the State of Punjab. Section 47-A of the Indian STAMP ACT is reproduced as under:-

"47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with.-

(1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering. instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the inst