1991 PLP 1622 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑While impounding agreement, imposing penalty upon petitioner and ordering recovery of penalty through Collector, Appellate Court below, had acted with material irregularity and illegality‑‑‑Such order of Court below could not be sustained‑‑‑High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside that order. Allah Wasaya Malik for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1991. This is defendant's revision petition which has arisen from a pre‑emption suit filed by the respondents to pre‑empt the sale made in favour of the present petitioner. In this revision petition the petitioner has challenged that part of the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court on 20‑9‑1982 which relates to impounding the document EX.D.1 and the petitioner has been called upon to pay an amount of Rs.23,496 as penalty on account of stamp duty failing which the said document was ordered to be sent to the Collector for recovery of the said amount.

2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this revision petition, therefore, they are hereby proceeded against ex parte.

3. It has been held by the learned lower appellate Court in the impugned order dated 20‑9‑1982 that Ex.D.l which has been described as agreement was in fact a sale therefore, it was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, as such, was liable to be stamped, therefore, stamp duty was to be recovered on this document.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land the sale of which was made is not situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation. The sale regarding agricultural land not situated within the limits of Municipal. Corporation could be made orally without execution of any written sale‑deed. That being so, the argument is that if the parties had reduced into writing the (Yadasht) regarding the sale that would not be compulsorily registrable as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, was not extended to the areas beyond limits of Municipal Corporation.

5. The argument has force. The sale of the land in dispute could be effected orally and if the parties have reduced into writing a" Yadasht" describing it, as an agreement that would not attract Section 17 of the Registration Act because the provisions of Transfer of Property Act requiring that a sale could be made only through registered instrument were not made applicable to such areas which were situated beyond municipal limits. The very basis on which the order for recovery of penalty was passed is not available.

6. The learned lower appellate Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in impounding agreement EX.D.1 and imposing penalty of Rs.23 496 upon the petitioner and ordering its recovery through Collector. This revision petition is accepted. The part of the order dated 20‑9‑1982 for impounding agreement EX.D.1 imposing penalty of an amount of Rs.23, 496 on the petitioner and ordering its recovery through Collector is hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑409/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.