VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 8.1.1992 passed by the Collector, Thanesar directing the respondent herein to deposit a stamp duty of Rs. 5,33,120/- (five lac thirty three thousand one hundred twenty) with the Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M). It was further directed that in case of failure to deposit, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The brief facts of the case are as under :- "Vasika No. 959 dated 16.10.1990 favouring Narain Dass S/o Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of Taraori, Tehsil and Distt. Karnal valued of Rs. 6,91,398/- was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Shahabad (M), Kurukshetra. The Accountant General, Haryana, in his audit Note for the year 1990-91 has pointed out stamp evasion of Rs. 5,33,120/-. This vasika is concerned with Solvent Industry Shahabad (M). Mr. Narain Dass vendee has purchased this Solvent Industry against Rs. 44.31 lacs in open bid. But in the sale-deed the price of plant and machinery has been excluded and the Registry of building and land has been executed against Rs. 6,21,398/-. The stamp duty levied is on Rs. 6,91,398/- instead of Rs. 44.31 lacs. Thus stamp duty evaded on 34,39,602/-. The total stamp duty on the total property was due on 41.31 lacs it is mentioned in the sale-deed. The vendor mentioned receipt of total amount in the vasika. The Accountant General, Haryana, has pointed out evasion of Rs. 5,33,120/- on this vasika. The Registrar Shahabad (M) issued notice to the vendee for the recovery of Rs. 5,33,120/- But the vendee has failed to deposit the amount. This is case of less stamp duty. Moreover, the Sub- Registrar, Shahabad (M) referred this case to this office. Case pertaining to this Vasika for the recovery of stamp duty under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 clause 47-A(2). The Sub-Registrar Shahabad directed the vendee to appear in the Court."
(2.) THE learned Collector by referring to the provisions of Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 2(6) of Indian Registration Act, 1980 came to the conclusion that stamp duty was required to be paid on the total value of the property amounting to Rs. 44.31 lacs and, therefore, answered the reference under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the 'Act') in favour of the petitioner herein and against the respondent. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Collector was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act under which the Collector was to exercise quasi judicial power. In order to come to this conclusion the reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chamkaur Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1991 P&H 26. The learned Appellate Authority further came to the conclusion that there was no evidence produced on record by the Sub-Registrar to determine the stamp duty on the document registered.
(3.) IT may be noticed that no reason whatsoever was given by the Collector by assessing the stamp duty as to how the bifurcation made by the Liquidator attached to the Delhi High Court at the time of sale was bad.;