Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This petition raises many interesting questions. But what is the relevant date for calculating the stamp duty? is the most important of all. These questions arise in this writ petition which is in fact, for quashing of the order dated 20.6.1989 passed by respondent No. 1, directing the recovery of deficiency in the stamp fee. though the relief is not so claimed. It is differently worded. FACTS
(2.) Sri Pannalal. predecessor-in-inferest of the petitioner was the owner of the 1/6 share in plot No. 1533 area 1 Bigha, 1 Biswa pukhta and 1553. area 14 biswa pukhta situate in Nagla Tikoni Chandaria, Allgarh (hereinafter referred to as the property). He approached one Sri Shyam Lal for advancing a loan of Rs. 2,000. There was mutual understanding between the two. Sri Shyam Lal advanced the loan of Rs. 2,000 and Sri Pannalal executed a sale-deed on 10.5.1972 of the property in his favour for Rs. 2.000, The same day Sri Shyamlal executed an agreement to sell in favour of Sri Pannalal for the same amount, i.e.. for Rs. 2,000 ; the entire transaction was a kind of security. Sri Shyamlal did not execute the sale-deed even when Sri Parma Lal offered to pay back the amount. Ultimately a suit' was filed against Sri Shyamlal for specific performance of the agreement. The trial court decreed the suit. The District Judge. Aligarh. dismissed the appeal on 15.11.1979. It was sometime In between Sri Pannalal and Sri Shamlal (the dates are not clear from the records) died and legal heirs were substituted In their place. Petitioners took proceeding for execution. The Court executed the sale-deed on 30.5.1989. It was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Tehsll Roll, Aligarh for registration. He sent a report on 2.6.1989 to the District Registrar (Respondent No. 1). The report says that the value of the property sold has been shown to Rs. 8.000 only whereas its value is Rs. 1,77,500 ; there is deficiency in the payment of the stamp duty ; the matter may be Investigated under Section 47A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 (The Act for short).
(3.) The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 20.6.1989 has held that the value of the property on 30.5.1989 was Rs. 2,13,000 : the required stamp duty has not been paid. The deficiency of the stamp duty according to him was to the tune of Rs. 29,725. A penalty of Rs. 500 was also Imposed ; recovery proceedings were started. This order says that a notice was sent to the petitioners, but they chose not to appear before respondent No. 1. Petitioners dispute this fact. According to them no notice was served. They have filed application to recall the recovery proceeding on 21.8.1989. It is still pending. There is nothing on the record to show if any order has been passed on this application, but the recovery proceedings continued. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition praying that deficiency or penalty on the sale-deed executed by the Court, may not be recovered from him. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION;