' MAHMOOD AHMED BHATTI, J.---Muhammad Tahir, the petitioner filed this petition to call into question the legality of Notice No,36-SR dated 31-I-2013 issued to him by Sub-Registrar Sahiwal, respondent No,2.
2. Concisely put, the fact, are that the petitioner purchased six properties in the year 2012 through six registered sale deeds, situated in Sahiwal . It is maintained by him in the writ petition that he paid the requisite stamp duty on all the sale deeds together with the registration fees prescribed therefor. However, on 31-I-2013, Sub-Registrar Sahiwal, respondent No,2 issued a notice to the petitioner to pay another amount of Rs,100,2000/- within three days, failing which he threatened to adopt coercive measures for the recovery of the aforesaid amount.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned notice issued by respondent No,2 is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. The learned Law Officer made a feeble attempt to defend the notice issued by the Sub-Registrar Sahiwal under the Stamp Act, 1899.
' On a Court query, the Sub-Registrar, Sahiwal present in the Court query, the Sub-Registrar, Sahiwal present in the Court-replied that in point of fact he was asked to do so by the Collector, Sahiwal.
5. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to reproduce section 31 of the Stamp Act, 1899:-- "Adjudication as to proper stamp.--(I) When any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five rupees) and not less than (fifty paisa) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable.
(2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are fully and truly set forth therein, and may refuse to proceed upon any such application until such abstract and evidence have been furnished accordingly: ' Provided that--
(a) no evidence furnished in pursuance of this section shall be used against any person in any civil proceeding, except in an enquiry as to the duty with which the instrument to which it relates is chargeable; and
(b) every person by whom any such evidence is furnished shall, on payment of the full duty with which the instrument to which it relates is chargeable, be relieved from any penalty which he may have incurred under this. Act by reason of the omission to state truly in such instrument any of the facts or circumstances aforesaid."
6. A bare perusal of the afore-quoted provision of law shows that it is the Collector of a District alone who is empowered to issue a notice calling upon the delinquent to make up for the stamp duty. Furthermore, he would first determine the shortfall in stamp duty. No doubt, in order to determine the exact stamp duty payable on an instrument, he may require any person to furnish information either by affidavits or otherwise. He may also hold an inquiry and record the evidence to arrive at the correct conclusion.
8(sic). It can hardly be overemphasized that the Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 figures nowhere in the scheme of things. He is not authorized to issue any notice under the Stamp Act, 1899 regarding a shortfall in stamp duty on an instrument. He stands precluded from doing so even if it comes to his knowledge that the instrument registered by him required the payment of additional stamp duty. At best, he may lay this information before the Collector.. Thereafter, he would have to wait for the decision of the Collector. Again, the Collector cannot delegate his authority to the Sub-Registrar. It is well-established law that when law specifies a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be clone in that manner or not at all.
9.Looking at the impugned notice issued by the Sub-Registrar Sahiwal, respondent No,2 in the light of the law laid down by the legislature in Section 31 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the same is a nullity and liable to be struck down. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31-1-2013 issued by respondent No,2 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The same being without jurisdiction is hereby set aside. As a result, this petition is allowed.