5. From a plain reading of Article 18 of Schedule 1-B as substituted by U.P. Act No.19 of 1981 and U.P. Act No.22 of 1998 it is clear that in respect of property put up for auction and sale a sale certificate is granted to the purchaser of such property sold by public auction by a court or by an officer, authority or body empowered under any law for time being in force to sell such property by public auction and to grant such certificate. The stamp duty payable on such certificate is described as same duty as on conveyance ( No.23 Clause (a)) for consideration equal to the amount of the purchase money only.
6. Now question arises for consideration as to whether the recovery officer appointed u/s 7 (1) of the Act, 1993 who has granted sale certificate to the petitioners is an officer or authority and Debt Recovery Tribunal is body empowered under any law for time being in force to sell such property by public auction and to grant such certificate as referable to Article 18 of schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act?
7. In order to find out accurate answer to this question, it would be useful to refer Section 3 clause (1), Section 7 (1), Section 17 clause (1), Section 18, Section 19 clause (22), Section 25 and Section 31(1) of the Act, 1993 as under:-
"Section-3 Establishment of Tribunal.- (1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish one or more Tribunals, to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act.
Section-7. Staff of Tribunal.- (1) The Central Government shall provide the Tribunal [with one or more Recovery Officers] and such other officers and employees as that Government may think fit.
Section-17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.-- (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.
Section-18. Bar of Jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority( except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17.
Section-19 Application to the Tribunal.--
(1) ........
(22) The Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate under his signature on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate.
Section-25 Modes of recovery of debts.-- The Recovery Officer shall, on receipt of the copy of the certificate under sub-section (7) of Section 19, proceed to recover the amount of debt specified in the certificate by one or more of the following modes, namely:-
(a) attachment and sale of the movable and immovable property of the defendant;
(b) arrest of the defendant and his detention in prison;
(c) appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the defendant.
Section -31.- Transfer of pending cases.-(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal:
Provided that nothing in this sub- section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court.
8. From a bare survey of the aforesaid provisions of the Act 1993, it clear that under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to establish one or more Tribunals, to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under the said Act. By virtue of Section 7 of the Act 1993, the Central Government is empowered to provide the Tribunal [with one or more Recovery Officers] and such other officers and employees as that Government may think fit. By virtue of Section 17 of the Act, 1993, A tribunal is entitled to exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. The "appointed day" as defined under Section 2 of the Act 1993, in relation to a Tribunal, means the date on which such Tribunal is established under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act 1993, creates bar of jurisdiction of courts and other authorities whereby it is provided that on and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority( except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 of the Act.
9. Section 19 of the Act 1993 deals with the procedures of Tribunal which provides procedure for recovery of debts due to the bank from any person, on application made by a bank or a financial institution and under Clause 22 of Section 19 of the Act, the Presiding Officer is empowered to issue a certificate under his signature on the basis of the order of the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate. Under section 25 of the Act 1993, modes of recovery of debts have been provided which inter alia envisages attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the defendant by the Recovery Officer appointed under the Act for such Tribunal. Section 31 of the Act deals with the transfer of pending cases. It provides that every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal, provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court.
10. Thus, in view of aforesaid statements of law contained in various provisions of the Act, 1993, it is clear that since by virtue of Section-18 read with Section-31 of the Act, the jurisdiction of court and other authority is barred for exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on the Tribunals constituted and established under the said Act from the appointed date and Tribunal alone is entitled to recover the Debts due to the Banks and financial institutions, therefore, there can be no scope for doubt to hold that Debt Recovery Tribunal is an authority or body empowered under law for time being in force i.e. under the Act 1993 to sell the property of defendants before the Tribunal, who are borrowers and/or guarantor of the loan through Recovery Officers as such Recovery Officers are authorised to sell property of such defendants by public auction for recovery of debts specified in the certificate issued by the Tribunal and to grant sale certificate to the purchaser of the property, as such, in my considered opinion, such sale certificate granted by Recovery Officer is fully covered by Article-18 of Schedule I-B of Stamp Act. It is immaterial that aforesaid sale certificate was not granted by the civil or Revenue court, Collector or Revenue Officer.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merit of sale consideration, as to whether property of such value could be sold by the Tribunal for lesser amount specified in sale certificate or not because of the reason that same is not under challenge before this court, I am of the considered opinion that sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal is fully covered under Article-18 Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay stamp duty for a consideration equal to the amount of purchase money only specified in the sale certificate. They are not liable to pay stamp duty under Article-23 of Schedule I-B on the market value of the property, determined/fixed by the Collector under Stamp Act. The view taken by the respondents no. 1 and 2 contrary to my view is wholly erroneous, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly impugned orders passed by respondents no.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed.