IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 8231 of 2013 STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Versus ANAND MOHAN CHHAPARWAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Sundaram - Govt. Advocate for the petitioners/State.

Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate assisted by Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocate for respondents.

Reserved on : 03/12/2025 Delivered on : 10/12/2025 ORDER With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Collector of Stamps, District Gwalior, to the extent, it imposes the penalty of Rs.9 Lacs on deficit stamp duty of Rs.51,57,442/- on the respondents has been set aside.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under:

2.1Certain immovable properties situated in Gwalior came to be partitioned between the respondents vide arbitration award passed in the year

2009. When the award was presented by the respondents before the Sub- Registrar for its registration, finding the stamp duty paid on the award to be insufficient, he impounded the award in terms of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1899 ) and referred the same to the District Registrar vide communication dated 28.06.2011 for determination of market value of the properties partitioned under the award and computation of appropriate stamp duty payable on the document, without registering the award.

2.2The Collector of Stamps, District Gwalior, on receipt of the reference under Section 33 of the Act of 1899 by the Sub-Registrar, registered the case and issued notices to the respondents for holding an enquiry for determination of the correct market value of the properties partitioned under the award and computation of the appropriate stamp duty leviable on the award, in view of the market value of the properties partitioned under the said award, after following the due process of law and affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents, the Collector found the deficit stamp duty of Rs.51,57,442/- on the award and accordingly, directed for its payment.

2.3The Collector, by exercising powers under Section 40 of the Act of

1899, also imposed penalty of Rs.9 Lacs vide order dated 12.07.2012 on the deficit stamp duty paid by the respondents. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.07.2012 in an appeal before the Board of Revenue, M.P. under Section 56(4) of the Act of 1899, only to the extent of imposition of penalty of Rs. 9,00,000/- on the ground that when the registration officer, before whom, a document is produced for registration, finds the document to be inadequately stamped and the reference thereafter is made to the Collector of Stamps for determination of appropriate stamp duty payable, then the powers which are exercised by the Collector are under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899. The registration officer before whom the document is produced for registration does not hold authority to impound the said document in exercise the powers under Section 33 of the Act of 1899, therefore he could not have made the reference of the award to the Collector by exercising powers of impounding the document under section 33 of the Act of 1899. The power exercised by the Collector while passing the order dated 12.07.2012 is under Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 and the said provision does not empower the Collector to levy any penalty. The provision for levy of penalty under Section 40 of the Act are attracted only when the proceedings of impounding are instituted under Section 33 of the Act of 1899.

2.4The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents vide order dated 15.01.2013 on the ground that when the document is presented before the registration officer for its registration and if he is of the opinion that