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 07.03.2019 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Khanna (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,12,375/- 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 06.07.2015 and the order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, affirming the order of the Collector.

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Pawat-2, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14. A sum of Rs.92,400/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Samrala and at that time, the sale deed was not impounded on account of inadequate stamp duty. The sale deed was returned to the petitioner after registration. The office of the Auditor General, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its audit for the year 2015-16 sent an audit memo to Sub-Registrar, Samrala pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.2,12,375/- towards deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale deed in question. On the basis of the audit report, the Sub-Registrar made a reference vide letter No.60/RC dated 06.08.2018 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.2,12,375/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Collector issued notice under Section 47-A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 dated 20.12.2018 to the petitioner regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit, resulting in the impugned orders.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar, Samrala 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 petitioner after registration of the same. It is thereafter, that notice was issued by the Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, asking for deficient stamp duty and such notice was 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 06.07.2015 and pursuant to that, notice was issued to the petitioner herein to pay the additional amount of Rs.2,12,375/- 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 06.07.2015 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 market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the ins