Thus this appeal by special leave.
Equally, numberregistration charges were paid.
When it was pointed out by the auditing authority, the Sub Registrar had made a reference to the District Collector for companylection of the stamp duty of Rs.32,350/ and also registration fee of Rs.1,000/ .
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court dated August 10, 1994 made in C.R. No.2836/94 dismissing the revision filed by the State on 5.2.1990.
The appeal was accordingly filed before the Additional District Judge at Gurdaspur.
In A. No.11/19 of 1991 by order dated March 21, 1991, the District Judge held that once the Sub Registrar had registered the document, he became functus officio and, therefore, he has numberpower to make a reference to the Collector for companylecting the deficit stamp duty and registration charges.
The facts would lie in short companypass.
Leave granted.
The sale deed No.3033 was executed in favour of the respondents for a companysideration of Rs.2,50,000/ in respect of the building situated in Gurdaspur.
Since it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, numberstamp duty was affixed on the sale deed.
When the respondents had gone to the High Court by way of writ petition, it had given liberty to the respondents to file an appeal before the District Judge.
When this was questioned, as stated earlier, the High Court rejected the revision.
