SHEKHER DHAWAN,J. - (1.) Present petition is challenge to the order dated 13.3.2008, passed by the Collector (ADC), S.A.S.Nagar and the order dated 8.12.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala on the ground that the Collector passed ex parte order for recovery of deficient stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3,04,000/ - with 12% interest per annum and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8.12.2009.
(2.) Relevant facts of the case that vasika No. 602 dated 12.5.2006 was sent by Sub Registrar vide letter No. 757/RK dated 21.1.2008 to the Collector for initiating proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as per the objections raised by the stamp auditor during the audit for the year 2006 -07. The objection was raised that as per jamabandi attached to the vasika, nature of the land was shown as Gair Mumkin plot, Gair Mumkin Abadi, and the Sub Registrar registered the vasika by showing the nature of land as Chahi, whereas the vasika should have been registered on the basis of the rates determined for the plots. The Collector issued notices to the purchaser but no one could appear and after that, chaspangi notice was also issued and still nobody appeared and respondent was proceeded against ex parte. The Collector passed the order dated 13.3.2008 that buyer is liable to pay the stamp duty Rs.
(3.) ,04,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of registration. Present petitioner challenged the said order before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala by way of appeal, which was dismissed and as such present petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that provisions of Section 47A of the Act are attracted only at the time of registration of the document and not at a later stage. The present vasika was registered on 12.5.2006, whereas reference was made on 21.1.2008; the same was legally not maintainable; the Collector, S.A.S.Nagar as well as the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala completely ignored this fact and the impugned orders be set aside.;