118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1796-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.07.2026 DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA AND ANR …. Appellants VERSUS GURNAM SINGH AND ANR …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present : Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Addl. AG Punjab for the appellants. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been preferred by the appellants-State of Punjab aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2024. 2. In the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein, the following order was passed at the time of issuance of notice of motion : ‘This is a petition that has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) whereby reference was accepted by the District Collector, Barnala and recovery of Rs.1,37,140/- (i.e. deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.1,28,695/- and registration charges of Rs.8,445/-), was ordered and the order dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P- 4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala AMAN JAIN 2026.07.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment LPA-1796-2026 (O&M) -2- Division, Patiala, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed being time barred. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that sale deed was registered on 29.03.2006 and the reference was made by the Sub- Registrar to the Collector pertaining to alleged deficiency in stamp duty, after a period of 9 years, which is not sustainable. He would further contend that at the time of registration of document, no objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar regarding deficiency of stamp duty and, therefore, after the same was registered, the Sub Registrar became functus officio and would not be competent to forward any such reference to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act regarding alleged deficiency of stamp duty payable. In this regard, he would rely upon judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 91; Jagdish Versus State of Haryana and others 2011(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 486 and Pankaj Gupta and others Versus State of Haryana and others 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 590 wherein it has been held that once a Sub Registrar registers a document, he would become functus officio. Notice of motion. AMAN JAIN 2026.07.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment LPA-1796-2026 (O&M) -3- At this stage, Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and seeks time to file reply. Adjourned to 23.11.2022. In the meantime, no coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned orders shall be taken against the petitioner.’ 3. In the reply the stand taken by the appellants herein (official respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition) was that they had received a complaint on 27.05.2014 from one Mr. Tarsem Lal Jindal and after investigation, vide letter dated 02.03.2015, Deputy Commissioner, Barnala directed the Collector to take action under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Pursuant thereto the sale deed was impounded and vide letter dated 10.03.2015 the matter was referred to the District Collector, Barnala to recover ₹1,37,140 as deficient stamp duty and registration fee. 4. The Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-4 appended with the writ petition) had relied upon the order passed by this Court in CWP-824-2018 titled as ‘Amandeep Singh Versus State of Punjab & Ors.’ decided on 05.12.2019 wherein it was held as under : ‘In Raghbir and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 2004(1) PLR 545, another Division Bench of this Court held that no action can be taken by a Collector under sub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act after expiry of three years from the date of registration of the AMAN JAIN 2026.07.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment LPA-1796-2026 (O&M) -4- instrument. Consequently, the argument of the State that the action had been initiated within the prescribed period is without any merit. Coming to the second argument raised by the State, it deserves to be mentioned that once the very initiation of the proceedings is beyond the prescribed period and the result of the proceedings is a foregone conclusion, no useful purpose would be served in forcing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice and face the proceedings before the authorities. Accordingly, the second argument of the State also does not survive. It may further be noticed that this Court had in a number of decisions interfered and quashed the show cause notices where it found that the notices had been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the Division bench judgments in Smt. Chand Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 776; Sub Registrar, Nuh and another Versus Mahipal and others, 2012(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 475; Atam Praksh Pasricha Versus State of Haryana and others, 2015(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 834 and Eshbeen Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 673.’ AMAN JAIN 2026.07.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment LPA-1796-2026 (O&M) -5- 5. The learned counsel for the appellants-State of Punjab has candidly admitted that no appeal was filed challenging the order passed in Amandeep Singh’s case (supra) and the same has attained finality. Additionally, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 776 days for condonation of which a separate application being CM-4387-LPA-2026 has been filed. There is no cogent reason forthcoming for the condonation of the extraordinary delay in filing the present appeal. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed on delay as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE (AMARJOT BHATTI) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Aman Jain NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2026.07.08 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment