HC seeks answer on stamp duty recovery notice

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 24

An officer, who issued stamp duty recovery notice to landowners, has virtually landed himself in dock.

Act of respondent arbitrary

The act of the respondent is wholly arbitrary as a statutory right granted to the petitioners by the state govt can’t be taken away through a letter which is in the nature of an executive order. — Shivansh Malik, Counsel

The HC has asked the officer to file his “personal” affidavit explaining how he initiated the proceedings for the recovery of the alleged deficient stamp duty. This was despite the fact that exemption from stamp duty was duly mentioned in the sale deed itself.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat directed that the proceedings against the petitioners, pursuant to the impugned order, would remain stayed. Issuing a notice of motion to the respondents for April 20 next year, he made it clear that the order would remain in force till the next date of the hearing “only”. The notice issued by the Bench was accepted by Deputy Advocate-General Harish Rathee on behalf of the respondents. He also sought time from the Bench to file a written statement. The issue was brought to the HC notice after a petition was filed against the state and other respondents by Balwan and other landowners through counsel Shivansh Malik.

After going through the documents and hearing Malik, Justice Sehrawat said the certificates regarding exemption from stamp duty had also been issued by the District Revenue Officer and the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act.

Appearing before the Bench, Malik submitted the letters issued by Rohtak collector-cum-SDO were arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and liable to be set aside. He said the petitioners were granted an incentive to purchase a chunk of land within two years of acquisition of their land in Rohtak’s Kherari village to avail the benefits of certain policies duly approved by the Council of Ministers and published in the Haryana gazette. As such, it attained a statutory character. But the respondent attempted to take away the rights granted to the petitioners through a simple letter.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.