K.S.JHAVERI, J. - (1.) By way of this Special Appeal, the appellant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.01.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition preferred by appellant petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that in facts of the present case, Section 51 (2) of the Registration and Stamp Act 1998 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1998') could not be invoked. Section 51 (2) of the Act of 1998 reads as under :- "Section 51 (2) : When through mistake or otherwise any instrument which is undervalued and not duly stamped is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer may call for the original instrument from the party and, after giving the party liable to pay stamp duty an opportunity of being heard and recording the reasons in writing and furnishing a copy thereof to the party, impound it and on failure to produce such original instrument by the party, a true copy of such instrument taken out from the registration record shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be the original of such instrument and send it to the Collector for taking action under sub-section(3)."
(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the reference made by the same officer, who is incompetent or functus officio, in view of the fact that he himself assessed and charged the stamp duty on the basis of calculating market value. However, in less than period of one month, he issued another notice (Annex.2) dated 06.09.2016 and raised a demand of new amount from i.e. Rs. 8,01,330/- to 17,49,800/-, which is not permissible under Section 51 (2) of the Act of 1998.;