202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CWP-5359-2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 Ishwanti .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Ms. Dheerja, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner.

Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P- 2) passed by respondent No.3 which were passed against the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

2. Ms. Dheeraja, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the facts of the present case, submitted that a sale deed was registered on 04.02.2011 and the requisite stamp duty was paid. However, vide Annexure P-1 dated 09.08.2016, the Sub-Registrar, Pataudi wrote a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Pataudi (Gurgaon) for taking action under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for recovery of deficient stamp duty to the tune of (cid:0) 2,35,734/- from the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter from the Sub-Registrar, Pataudi, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector, Pataudi passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-

2), directing recovery of (cid:0) 2,35,734/- from the petitioner as deficient stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before learned Commissioner, Gurugram Mandal, Gurugram. The Commissioner vide order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking and cryptic order without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal especially pertaining to the issue of limitation even after noting the same in the impugned order (Annexure P-4).

3. Learned Legal Aid Counsel further submitted that under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to the State of Haryana under sub-rule (3), action can be taken by the Collector only within three years from the date of registration of the instrument. In the present case, however, even the initiation of action by the Sub-Registrar occurred after approximately 5½ years, as the sale deed was registered on 04.02.2011, and the communication was sent by the Sub-Registrar, Pataudi to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil), Pataudi (Gurgaon) vide Annexure P-1 on 09.08.2016. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Pataudi, took cognizance and passed the impugned order, directing recovery of the deficient stamp duty from the petitioner. She further submitted that the aforesaid order, directing recovery of deficient stamp duty from the petitioner, violates Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as it was initiated after 5½ years, which is beyond the prescribed three-year period under sub-rule (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. Consequently, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Pataudi, is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel further referred to the order passed by the Commissioner i.e. the Appellate Authority whereby the Commissioner even after noting the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay in initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, did not consider the aforesaid aspect at all and by way of a cryptic order had dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority is also liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel has referred to a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in “Kanwaljit Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner and others” 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 2 and has also referred to another judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed