G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the orders passed by the Collector, Gurgaon (respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No. 1) under Sections 47-A, 21 and (4) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') (as applicable to the State of Haryana).
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners purchased land measuring 17 Biswas 5 Biswanis situated at Gurgaon for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and got the sale deed registered by paying stamp duty of Rs. 32,500/-. However, on a reference made by the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon under Section 47-A(1), respondent No. 2, after making a show of compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 47-A(2) of the Act, passed order Annexure P.3 dated 28.8.1997 for payment of additional stamp duty by assessing the value of the land at Rs. 17,85,000/-. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below :- "This deed has been forwarded to this Court under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act for decision by the Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon. Upon this, the vendee was summoned and Ranbir Singh appeared as representative of the vendee and he made a statement that there are deep pits in the purchased land and he has purchased this land for agricultural purpose. He has not committed any theft of stamp duty over purchase of this land and the land has been only purchased as per amount mentioned in the deed. I have gone through the statement made by the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon and the vendee and has also heard the vendee in addition to the spot inspection of suit land. After the inspection, it is found that the land mentioned in the deed is situated adjoining the Bus Stand and many houses are built in the surrounding areas and there is plenty of abadi and the land is not agricultural land and agricultural produce cannot be sown in this land and this land is in the shape of plots. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the vendee has purchased this land in the shape of plots and therefore I assess the value of this land as Rs. 17,85,000/- considering the deed to have been registered with a lesser value and accordingly after recovering the stamp duty from the vendee the deed holder be informed. The order has been announced." The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No. 1 as barred by limitation vide order Annexure P-4. dated 7.9.2000.
(3.) SHRI Naresh Katyal argued that order Annexure P-3 should be declared as vitiated by an error of law appeal on the face of the record and violation of the rules of natural justice because before assessing the value of the land at Rs. 17,85,000/- and directing the petitioners to pay the additional stamp duty, respondent No. 2 did not hold enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Haryana Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 (for short, the Rules). He further argued that the finding recorded by respondent No. 2 about the nature and situation of the land should be quashed because it is not based on any tangible evidence and also because the petitioners were not given opportunity to produce evidence to rebut the so-called evidence collected at the time of spot inspection. Learned counsel assailed the appellate order by arguing that while dismissing the appeal as time barred, respondent No. 1 over-looked the vital fact that notice in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules had not been served upon the petitioners.;