The purchaser of property at a public auction is liable to pay the stamp duty on the sale certificate.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ, quashing the order dt. 28-8-81 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No. 3 in Revision No. 81-11/78 as also the order dt. 14-4-78 (Annexure-C) passed by the S D. O. Jaora in Revenue Case No. 35-C-132/75-76.

( 2 ) THAT M/s. Jaora Oil Mills Jaora was sold by auction and the petitioner purchased the same for Rs. 5,61,000/- on 7-2-76. The sale-certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is filed as Annexure-A to the petition. A copy of the sale-certificate was sent to the Sub-Registrar Jaora for registration. "the petition was filed on 16-4-82 and the petitioner's initial averment was to the effect that the Sub-Registrar sent it (copy of the sale-certificate) to the Sub-Divisional Officer who was invested with the powers of Collector for recovery of stamp duty of Rs. 47,685/-from the petitioner. "it was averred that the Sub-Registrar registered the copy of the sale-certificate by filling it in Book No. 1 and sent its copy to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora. This amendment has a material bearing as will be presently seen. The S. D. O. Jaora issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the stamp duty be not deposited by him. Petitioner filed an objection Annexure-B and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 passed an order dt. 14-4-78 (Annexure-C,) directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty. The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition u/s. 56 of the Stamps Act, before respondent No. 3 against the order dt. 14-4-78 (Annexure-C) The Revenue Board was of the view that revision should have been filed before the Commissioner and the petition was returned for proper presentation. Aggrieved by this order dt. 23-5-78, the petitioner filed a writ petition being M. P. No. 169/78 which was allowed by this Court by order Dt. 4-10-80 and the respondent No. 3 was directed to dispose of the revision petition, in accordance with law. In compliance of this direction, the revision petition was Heard by respondent no. 3 and dismissed the same on 28-8-81 holding that stamp duty was chargeable on the certificate of sale and the petitioner was liable to pay the same. The petitioner has, therefore, now preferred the present petition praying for quashing both the orders as passed by the S. D. O. (Annexure-C) and the Revenue Board (Annexure-D ).

( 3 ) SHRI M. A. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points : 1. That the Sub-registrar Jaora was not competent to impound the sale-certificate and send the same to the respondent No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Officer for recovery of stamp-duty. 2. The reference by Sub-Registrar Jaora being itself illegal, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 14-4-78 (Annexure-C) was without jurisdiction and for the same reason the order Annexure-D passed by the respondent No. 3. 3. The sale certificate having been issued u/s. 147 of the M. P, Land Revenue Code, not providing for payment of stamp-duty, as it was exempted therefrom the respondent No. 2 had no power to order recovery of stamp-duty.

( 4 ) THAT S. 29 (f) of the Stamp Act is not applicable to the sale-certificate.

( 5 ) THAT the Sub-Registrar having filed the sale-certificate in Book No. 1, he had no jurisdiction either to impound it or request the Collector to recover the requisite stamp-duty from the petitioner.

( 6 ) LASTLY, the instrument had not come before the Collector in the performance of his functions. He could neither impound it nor had he the jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to pay the stamp-duty without impounding the same. 4. Shri A. H. Khan learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and other respondents submitted that the Sub-Registrar was competent to impound the sale-certificate. The provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 merely prescribe a procedure for recovery of government dues as arrears of land revenue and have no application to the pay