[Maharashtra Stamp Act] 'Power To Impound Affects Property Rights; Can Only Be Exercised By Registering Officer': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is a serious statutory power having direct civil consequences on the property rights of a citizen and therefore can be exercised only by the “Registering Officer” before whom the document was registered. The Court observed that Section 33A does not permit any...
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is a serious statutory power having direct civil consequences on the property rights of a citizen and therefore can be exercised only by the “Registering Officer” before whom the document was registered. The Court observed that Section 33A does not permit any other revenue authority or superior officer to assume such power merely on the basis of administrative hierarchy.
Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated 26 April 2014 passed by the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 33A. The dispute arose from a Development Agreement dated 24 February 2004 executed by Voltas Limited in favour of the petitioner, which was duly stamped and registered before the Sub-Registrar. An audit objection was raised in 2006 alleging a deficit in stamp duty, which was examined and rejected by the authorities on 28 August 2006, with a clear finding that proper stamp duty had been paid. After several years, proceedings were sought to be revived on the basis of directions issued by superior authorities, culminating in the impugned order levying stamp duty by treating the agreement as a conveyance.
The Court held that Section 33A operates in a narrow field to correct errors at the stage of registration and confers power exclusively on the Registering Officer who handled the document at the time of registration. Rejecting the State's contention that the expression “Registering Officer” could be broadly interpreted to include other revenue authorities, the Court held that such an interpretation would defeat the legislative intent and dilute procedural safeguards.
“… impounding is a serious step affecting the property rights of a citizen. The officer exercising such power must therefore have a direct connection with the registration of the instrument and must act within the area contemplated by the provision,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasised that impounding under Section 33A requires calling for the original instrument, granting a hearing and recording reasons, and therefore cannot be exercised by an officer having no direct nexus with the act of registration. Supervisory or administrative control cannot substitute statutory competence. It observed:
“… superior revenue officers may issue administrative directions or exercise supervisory control. However, supervisory control does not amount to the exercise of statutory power. The power to impound under Section 33A attaches to the office that performed or was required to perform the act of registration. It cannot be assumed by another officer merely on the ground of hierarchy in the context of service law.”
The Court also rejected the objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, holding that when an order is passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory limitation, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is not barred.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 26 April 2014, passed by the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps.
Case Title: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.11145 OF 2014]