G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. In this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing notice dated 2.12.2002 (Annexure PI) issued by Sub Registrar-II (respondent No. 3) for recovery of the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 46,880/- in respect of sale deed Nos. 471 dated 3.5.1995, 800 dated 20.6.1996 and 899 dated 29.6.1995.

2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners and their father-Shri Chandgi Ram purchased land measuring 39 Kanals 8 Marias comprised in Khewat No. 218, Khatoni Nos. 218, 242, 243, 143/1, 244, Rect. No. 30, Killa Nos. 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5(8-0) and Rect. No. 31 Killa No. 1(7-8) from Smt. Saroj Bala wife of Shri Krishan Lal vide registered sale deed No. 471 dated 30.5.1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,98,000/-by paying stamp duty of Rs. 24,750/-. They purchased another parcel of land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marias comprised in Khewat No. 219, Khatoni Nos. 241 and 243, Rect. No. 15, Killa Nos. l2(2-7), 14(3-7), 15(4-16), 16/2(5-12), 18(7-10), 17(8-0), 19(8-0), 22(8-0), 23(8-0),24(8-0), 25(8-0) and Rect. No. 14, Killa No. 21(7-8), measuring 79 Kanals (Rakba Moza Nidani) form Smt. Saroj Bala, vide sale deed No. 800 dated 20.6.1995 which was got registered by paying stamp duty of Rs. 23,750/-. They purchased one more piece of land measuring 23 Kanals 10 Marias comprised in Khewat No. 219, Khatoni Nos. 241 and 243, Rect. No. 15, Killa Nos. 12(2-7), 14(3-7), 15/1(4-16), 16/2 (5-12), 17(8-0), 18(7-10), 19(8-0), 22(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No,14, Killa No. 21(7-8), total 79 Kanals (Rakba Moza Nidani), Tehsil and District Jind from Smt. Bala for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- and got registered sale deed No. 89 dated 29.6.1995 by paying stamp duty of Rs. 23,750/-. After 7 years, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned notice requiring the petitioners to make good the alleged deficiency of the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 46,880/- with a stipulation that if they failed to deposit the deficient stamp duty, then the same will be recovered as land revenue by attachment of the property.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned notice on the ground that it is barred by time and is also ultra vires to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as inserted by Haryana Act No. 37 of 1973) (for short, the) read with Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 and also on the ground that respondent No. 3 does not have the jurisdiction to take action under Section 47-A of the.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that impugned notice was issued by respondent No. 3 in view of the objection raised by the audit party of the office of Accountant General, Haryana, which carried out the audit of the account books maintained by his office. In para 8 of the written statement, the respondents have detailed the audit objection raised by the audit party and averred that the impugned notice has been issued in furtherance of the said objection.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 47-A, of the Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana, reads as under;

"47. Instrument under-valued how to be dealt with. - (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

2. On receipt of reference under Sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

3. The Collector may, suo-motu or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a district, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject-matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under Sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in Sub-section (2) and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty:

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973 also be competent to act as aforesaid in respect of the instruments registered on or after the first day of November, 1966 and before the first day of October, 1970.

4. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."

6. An analysis of the provisions reproduced above shows that on a reference made by the Registering Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, the Collector is required to make an enquiry and after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing, determine the value or consideration and the duty payable for registration of any instrument and the deficient amount of duty, if any, payable by the persons liable to pay the duty. Under Sub-section (3), the Collector suo-motu or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of the District, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject-matter of the instrument is situate, call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon. If he has reason to believe that value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, then he can determine the value or consideration thereof and the duty payable in respect of such instrument and also declare that deficient amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of a Division which shall be heard and disposed of in a manner prescribed under the rules.

7. From what we have observed above, it is clear that no officer other than the Collector can pass order under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of thefor determination of the value of the property or consideration, as the case may be, and the deficient amount of duty payable by the person concerned. Therefore, the notice issued by respondent No. 3 is liable to be treated as without jurisdiction.

8. We also agree with the petitioner that the notice issued by respondent No. 3 is barred by time and is liable to be quashed as such. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector can take action on a reference made by the Registering Officer under Sub-section (1) thereof. No limitation has been prescribed for initiation of action by the Registering Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, but the language of that sub-section makes it clear that the officer concerned can make a reference to the Collector only if while registering the document he has reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration has not been truly set forth. This necessarily means that he has to make a reference immediately after registering the document. Under Sub-section (3), the Collector can take such action, either suo-motu or on receipt of reference from Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is subject-matter of instrument, is situated. For taking action under Sub-section (3), limitation of three years from the date of registration of the instrument has been prescribed. In other words, no action can be taken by the Collector under Sub-section (3) after expiry of three years counted from the date of registration of the instrument. If that be the position, we have no hesitation to hold that the notice issued by respondent No. 3 after 7 years of the registration of sale deed is clearly barred by time and is liable to be quashed.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and notice Annexure P1 is quashed.

S.S. Saron, J.