O R D E R First respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation against the revision petitioner and the second respondent for the injuries suffered by him due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed his counter contesting the claim. Second respondent filed its counter inter alia contending that inasmuch as the validity of insurance policy taken out by the revision petitioner expired, and as insurance for the bus involved in the accident was not in force by the date of accident, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent. 2 Revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend his counter by taking a plea that the Tribunal constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim inasmuch as the vehicle was not insured by the date of accident. The Tribunal by the order under revision dismissed the said petition. Hence the revision. 3 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly relying on COMMISSIONER, COAL MINES WELFARE ORGANISATIN, DHANBAD VS. PARMA NAND THAKUR(1) contended that since the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured by the date of accident, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction and only Civil Court will have jurisdiction because plying of vehicles without insurance is prohibited by the Act. 4. It is well known that pleadings should contain only facts but not evidence or questions of law. Whether the Tribunal, on the facts pleaded, has jurisdiction or not is a pure question of law. So even without a pleading, that question relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. For that reason only this revision has to be dismissed. 5 Though merits of a proposed amendment need not be gone into or considered, at the time of disposal of the application for amendment since amendments which are frivolous and which are intended to delay disposal of the case need not be allowed, I wish to go into the merit of the proposed amendment, which, as stated earlier, can be gone into by the Tribunal even at the time of arguments, though no specific plea in that regard was taken in the pleadings. 6 Parma Nand Thakur case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner arose out of an application filed under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (1939 Act) in which a learned Judge of the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court held that in respect of vehicles not insured as provided by the provisions of the 1939 Act causing an accident, the provisions of Chapter VIII of that Act are not attracted and so Civil Court only will have jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation by the victims of the accident or their heirs. That decision, obviously, was rendered without keeping in view Section 110 F of the 1939 Act which lays down that after constitution of Claims Tribunals for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which has to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. If the owner of the motor vehicle, who is bound to insure the vehicle as per Section 146 of the Act fails to insure it and plies it or allows it to be plied on the road, he will be liable for punishment under Section 196 of the Act. His negligence in not renewing the insurance cannot set at naught the bar contained in Section 175 of the Act. So I am unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in that case. In fact, UNION OF INDIA VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD(2) supports my view. In that case a taxi collided with Allahabad Saharanpur’passenger train resulting in the death of some of the passengers travelling in the taxi and injuries to some others. The legal representatives of a deceased victim filed a claim petition under Section 110 A of the 1939 Act in which the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application was put in issue. When the case came up before it the apex Court held that if an accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle the Tribunal’s jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor, and not due to the negligence of the motor vehicle in question. In this case the first respondent contends that he received injuries only due to an accident caused by the motor vehicle belonging to the revision petitioner. So it is clear that the claim in this case arose out of an accident which occurred due to the use of a motor vehicle. So as per Section 175 of the Act the Tribunal constituted under the Act only, but not the Civil Court that will have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation. 7. So, it is clear that the petition for amendment is filed only with a view to delay the proceedings. As no purpose would be served in allowing the petition, I find no grounds to interfere with the order dismissing the petition and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. --X-- 2007(2) L.S. 162 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH : : AT HYDERABAD Present: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy Smt.Mula Rama Devi ..Petitioner Vs. Collector & District Registrar, Nalgonda & Anr., ..Respondent W.P.No.3052/07 Date:20-3-2007 INDIAN STAMP ACT, Sec.41-A - Computer-Aided Administration of Registration Department (CARD) - Petitioner paid stamp duty and registration charges as furnished by Department as mentioned in basic value register and got document registered through 2nd respondent/Sub-Registrar - 1st respondent/Collector & District Registrar caused inspection of records of 2nd respondent and issued notice to petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty or submit explanation - After considering explanation, 1st respondent issued proceedings requiring petitioner to pay balance stamp duty. Petitioner contends that after securing value of property, stamp duty and registration fee and on that basis requisite amount was paid and document registered and that 1st respondent did not say a word, about correctness or otherwise of particulars furnished by his own Department and still required petitioner to pay huge amount without any record to facts. Petitioner contends that after securing value of property, stamp duty and registration fee and on that basis requisite amount was paid and document registered and that 1st respondent did not say a word, about correctness or otherwise of particulars furnished by his own Department and still required petitioner to pay huge amount without any record to facts. Sec.41-A empowers Collector, to recover deficit stamp duty, if a document not duly stamped, on account of mistake of registering authority - Where non- payment of stamp duty is tainted with fraud, recovery can be effected beyond 10 years - As a condition precedent for invoking power under this section Collector must be satisfied that document not duly stamped and registered by Registering Officer by mistake - Particulars of mistakes must also be clearly stated - In instant case, opinion of Collector that value of property ought to have been on higher side, cannot clothe him with power under Sec.41-A. When petitioner brought to 1st respondent’s notice entries in register as well as information furnished to her through CARD system, 1st respondent was under obligation to refer same and express his view - But, from impugned order, it is clear that he has subdued maintenance of CARD system, basic value register and explanation submitted by petitioner - Whims and fancies of an Authority, conferred with power, u/Sec.41-A; cannot be countenanced in law, unless conclusions are supported by verifiable material - Not a single reason, worth its name, finds place in impugned order - It is a typical case, either of non-application of mind or arbitrariness, in exercise of powers - Order impugned - Unsustainable - Writ petition, allowed. Mr.K. Govind, Advocate for the Petitioner. G.P. for Revenue, Advocate for the Respondent. O R D E R Petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.5.17 guntas of land in Sy.N.155/A of Nemaragomula village of Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, through a sale deed dated 18-12-2003. The value of the land was mentioned in the basic value register, maintained by the 2nd respondent, as Rs.63,000/-, per acre. The department of stamps and registration itself furnished the details of valuation of the property as Rs.3,41,775/-. The stamp duty and registration charges were specified at Rs.20,520/- and Rs.1,710/- respectively. Petitioner paid the said amounts, and the 2nd respondent registered the document. 2. The 1st respondent caused an inspection of the records of the 2nd respondent. The department of stamps and registration itself furnished the details of valuation of the property as Rs.3,41,775/-. The stamp duty and registration charges were specified at Rs.20,520/- and Rs.1,710/- respectively. Petitioner paid the said amounts, and the 2nd respondent registered the document. 2. The 1st respondent caused an inspection of the records of the 2nd respondent. He issued notice dated 15-05-2006 to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). According to him, the value of the property, covered by the document, works out to Rs.19,69,275/-, stamp duty of Rs.2,16,640/-, and registration fee Rs,9,850/-, ought to have been paid. The petitioner was given an option to pay deficit stamp duty, or to submit explanation. 3. Petitioner submitted an explanation through her father. It was stated that the value of the property did not exceed the one, stipulated in the document, and that it is supported by the records, maintained by the Registration Department itself. It was further contended that the petitioner did not suppress any fact at the time of registration. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 22-01-2007, stating that the document is chargeable with stamp duty of Rs.2,16,640/-, and registration fee of Rs.9,580/-; and required the petitioner to pay the balance. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had secured the particulars of the value of the property, stamp duty and registration fee, payable thereon, and it was only on that basis, that the requisite amount was paid, and the document was registered. He contends that the 1st respondent did not say a word, about the correctness or otherwise of the particulars furnished by his own department, and still, required the petitioner to pay huge amount, without any record, to the facts. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that at the relevant point of time, several documents came to be registered for the lands in the neighbourhood, and that in the very survey number, plots were sold at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yard. He contends that the 1st respondent took the relevant facts into account, and passed the impugned order. 6. With a view to ensure transparency and objectivity, the Government introduced a system, known as Computer-Aided Administration of Registration Department (CARD). yard. He contends that the 1st respondent took the relevant facts into account, and passed the impugned order. 6. With a view to ensure transparency and objectivity, the Government introduced a system, known as Computer-Aided Administration of Registration Department (CARD). Under this system, the parties are provided with the necessary information relating to the value of the property, stamp duty, registration and charges payable thereon. The petitioner availed this facility through her application. The information was furnished by the 2nd respondent, through the CARD system, on 09-12-2003. The total value of the property, purchased by the petitioner; was furnished, as Rs.3,41,775/-. The stamp duty and registration were stipulated as Rs.20,520 and Rs.1,710/-, respectively. The heading of the document reads “Market Value Assistance”. In the note, appended at the bottom, it is stated that the values are valid till the next general revision. 7. The petitioner paid the stamp duty and registration fee, in accordance with this information, and the document was registered on 18-12-2003. Section 41-A of the Act empowers the Collector, to recover the deficit stamp duty, if a document was not duly stamped, on account of the mistake of the Registering Authority. The limitation, within which such an exercise can be undertaken; is stipulated. Where the non-payment of the stamp duty is tainted with fraud, the recovery can be effected beyond 10 years. The provision reads asunder: 8. The limitation, within which such an exercise can be undertaken; is stipulated. Where the non-payment of the stamp duty is tainted with fraud, the recovery can be effected beyond 10 years. The provision reads asunder: 8. Section 41-A: Recovery of Stamp Duty not levied or short levied: (1) Whereafter the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, any instrument chargeable with duty has not been duly stamped and registered by any Registering Officer by mistake and remarked as such by the Collector or any audit party, the Collector may, within five years from the date of registration serve a notice on the person by whom the duty was payable requiring him to show cause why [the amount required to make up the deficit stamp duty should not be collected from him along with a penalty of three times of the deficit stamp duty.] Provided that where the non-payment was by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the Collector may within ten years from the date of registration serve a notice on such person to show cause why [the amount required to make up the deficit stamp duty should not be collected from him along with a penalty of three times of the deficit stamp duty.] (2) The Collector or any officer specially authorized by him in this behalf shall, after considering the representation if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under subsection (1), determine by an order, [the amount of duty and the penalty] due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount as determined. On payment of the [amount] the Collector shall add a certificate under Sec.42. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (2) may prefer an appeal before the [Chief Controlling Revenue Authority] Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad within three months from the date of such order. (4) Any [amount] payable under this section shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue]”. 8. As a condition precedent, for invoking the power under this Section, the Collector must be satisfied that the document was not duly stamped, and was registered by the Registering Officer by mistake. (4) Any [amount] payable under this section shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue]”. 8. As a condition precedent, for invoking the power under this Section, the Collector must be satisfied that the document was not duly stamped, and was registered by the Registering Officer by mistake. The particulars of mistakes must also be clearly stated. In the instant case, the notice issued by the 1st respondent does not refer to any mistake, attributable to the 2nd respondent, nor to the petitioner. The opinion of the Collector, that the value of the property ought to have been on the higher side, cannot clothe him, with the power under Section 41-A of the Act. 9. The value of a property, as entered in the basic value register, maintained by the Registration Department, provides an ample guidance to the Collector, to invoke his powers under Section 41-A. He can invoke his jurisdiction in cases, where the value of the property mentioned in document, does not accord with the one, entered in the basic value register. There again, he has to keep the matter open, and can come to a conclusion only after considering the explanation, that may be offered by the parties to the document. The very purpose of maintaining basic value register is, to avoid uncertainty, in the matter of payment of stamp duty and registration charges. It is not known, as to whether the 1st respondent verified the register, before he issued the show cause notice. At least, when the petitioner brought to his notice, the entries in the register as well as the information furnished to her, through CARD system, the 1st respondent was under obligation to refer to the same and express his view. In the final order passed by him, the 1st respondent observed as under: “After careful examination of recitals of the said document and other connected material available on record and after considering the representation of the party the undersigned came to a conclusion that the document under reference is a chargeable to a stamp duty of Rs.2,16,640/- and registration fee Rs.9,580/- under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A to the India Stamp Act, 1899. As the document bears a stamp of Rs.39,520/- and Registration fee Rs.1,710/- only, the duty required to make up the deficit is, hereby determined as Rs.1,85,260/- (deficit stamp duty Rs.1,77,120/- and deficit fees Rs.8,140/-). As the document bears a stamp of Rs.39,520/- and Registration fee Rs.1,710/- only, the duty required to make up the deficit is, hereby determined as Rs.1,85,260/- (deficit stamp duty Rs.1,77,120/- and deficit fees Rs.8,140/-). Smt.Mula Ramadevi W/o.Ravikiran Kasaram shall therefore, directed to pay Rs.85,260/- towards the deficit duty in respect of the document under reference within a period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order and produce the original document along with payment receipt for adding certificate, failing which the undersigned will be at liberty to recover the said amount even by coercive process like arrears of land revenue as provided for under the law, i.e. section 48 of Indian Stamp Act”. 10. From this, it is clear that he has subdued the maintenance of CARD system, basic value register, and explanation submitted by the petitioner, in response to a show cause notice issued by him; to his subjective opinions, not guided by any criteria. The whims and fancies of an Authority, conferred with the power, under Section 41-A of the Act; cannot be countenanced in law, unless the conclusions are supported by verifiable material. Not a single reason, worth its name, finds place in the impugned order. It is a typical case, either of non-application of mind, or arbitrariness, in exercise of powers. On either count, it cannot be sustained. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. --X--