JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.(Oral)

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no proceedings could have been initiated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, the 1899 Act') by the District Collector Faridabad-respondent No.3 on the recommendation of the respondent No.4 the Joint Sub-Registrar. The petitioner-Company had entered into a collaboration agreement and the same was registered on March 22, 2011 in respect of a land situate in Village Bhatola, District Faridabad. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company submitted an application to the Department of Town and Country Planning for grant of licence for development of a colony.

2. Supplementary collaboration agreement was also entered into between the parties and the same was registered on August 13, 2014. The Sub-Registrar-respondent No.4 referred the matter regarding registration of the supplementary collaboration agreement under Section 33 of the 1899 Act with the opinion the sufficient stamp duty had not been affixed thereon.

3. Vide order dated December 8, 2015, the District Collector- respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty and registration charges.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proper procedure under Section 47-A of the 1899 Act has not been followed and there was no power given to the Collector under Section 33 of the 1899 Act to demand additional stamp duty and registration fee. He refers to an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on February 10, 2016 in CWP No.19648 of 2013 "M/s Bestech India Private Limited versus The State of Haryana and others". The said judgement and order dated February 10, 2016 was challenged under a letter patent appeal being LPA No.1749 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated September 8, 2016 dismissed the appeals filed by the State. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.14324/2017, was preferred by the State before the Supreme Court of India. Vide order dated March 12, 2024, the special leave petition was dismissed with observation that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

5. He also submits that the impugned order passed by the District Collector-respondent No.3 on December 8, 2015 was challenged in revision petition before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the said revision petition was also dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that after the Co-ordinate Bench passed the order dated February 10, 2016 appropriate instructions were given by the Officer concerned to all the Divisional Commissioners of the State and Deputy Commissioners of the State to decide the cases regarding collaboration agreements which were pending for decision or which had been decided under Section 33 of the 1899 Act under provisions of Section 47-A of the 1899 Act. He hands over the necessary instructions vide Memo No.1185-STR-6-2016/4824 dated June 2, 2016 in Court today. Such instructions are retained with the record.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. This Court is of the view that the District Controller vide order dated December 8, 2015 had committed jurisdictional error by entertaining the proceedings under Section 33 of the 1899 Act. Furthermore, by upholding the said impugned order, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also committed a jurisdictional error, vide order dated June 25, 2019.

9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, impugned orders dated June 25, 2019 and December 08, 2015 are hereby set aside and/or quashed. It is however, made clear that the authorities concerned may initiate fresh proceedings as they may be permitted, in accordance with law.

10. With the directions, aforesaid CWP-37211-2019 is disposed of.

11. Connected application(s), if any, are accordingly disposed of.