RAJENDRA MENON, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition has challenged the order Annexure p-1 dated 16. 10. 95 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Distt. Shivpuri M. P. and the recovery order annexure P-2 issued in pursuance thereof.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted a relinquishment deed Annexure p-3 for registration before the Competent Authority on 15-5-95 but the same was not registered and returned back to the petitioner on 14-11-95. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the said document wherein seal have been affixed of its presentation on 15-5-95 and it is written in the same that it returned to the petitioner on 14-11-95, refused to register and registration Rule 35-R is also mentioned. Signature of the petitioner and seal and signature of the registering authority is also affixed.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was unwilling to get the document registered and the same was returned to him. However, he received a notice from the office of Collector stamps that the document was impounded on 15-5-95 under Section 33 of the Stamp act and proceedings were conducted against him. The petitioner appeared en 13-10-95 and moved an application for return of the document and contended that he does not want to register the document. However, the said application was rejected and the impugned order was passed and thereafter proceedings for recovery of rs, 1,03,388/- is being initiated vide annexure R-2. It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner does not want to get the document registered and the same was returned back to him without registration and as the document has not been registered, the entire action of the respondents is illegal and liable to the quashed.

( 4 ) ON being noticed the respondents have filed the return and it is indicated in the return that the document was never returned immediately when it was presented on 15-5-95, it was impounded under Section 33 of the Act and proceedings were conducted as per the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp act. It has been averred that this is not a case where proceedings under Section 47-A of the stamp Act were initiated. It is also submitted that subsequently the petitioner has taken away the documents and with a view to deprive the state of its revenue has filed a suit for partition of the property, got the matter placed before the Lok Adalat and without claiming any ownership of the property has get the matter compromised in the Lok Adalat to avoid payment of stamp duty. It is therefore submit that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

( 5 ) IT is an admitted position that the compromise decree Annexure R-l passed in the lok Adalat is subject matter of challenge by the State Govt. in a separate petition.

( 6 ) 1 have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

( 7 ) IN the present case, the question is as to whether the orders impugned for recovery of the amount is sustainable or not. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act contemplates examination and impounding of instruments. The said section authorises and empowers the registering authority to impound any instrument which in his opinion is not duly stamped. After impounding the same, the matter has to be referred to the Collector and the Collector has to take action in accordance with the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. The procedure for dealing with such instruments are contained in Section 38 of the Stamp Act. Apart from the aforesaid, Section 47-A also empowers for impounding of instruments if it is found that the instrument is under valued. A perusal of section 33 and Section 47 indicates that the authority if empowered to impound the document or instrument, if it is produced in the course of the performance of his function. The purpose of the aforesaid section is to empower the authorities to impound and take action for recovery of stamp duty if it comes to their knowledge that the instrument is not stamped in accordance with law. In fact the said section empowers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document