Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh And Ors vs Commissioner Faridkot Division, ... on 7 October, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Civil Writ Petition No.11935 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11935 of 2013
Date of decision : 07.10.2014
Amarjit Singh and others
......Petitioners
versus
Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-8) and 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay deficiency of stamp duty.
The petitioners have purchased land measuring 27 Kanals, 15½ Marlas, situated in Gill Patti, Bathinda from their relatives vide sale deed No.17335 dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) and land measuring 8 Bigha, 7 Biswas, situated in Patti Mehna, Bathinda, vide sale deed No.17338 dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-2). The list of Collector rates with regard to the land situated in Gill Patti, Bathinda has been appended as Annexure P-3. As per this list, rate of the land in village Gill Patti, Bathinda, was Rs.6250/- per Marla. Vide sale deed No.17335 dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-1), the petitioners have purchased the AJAY PRASHERland for a sum of Rs.35 lacs and paid stamp duty of Rs.2,80,000/- at the 2014.10.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.11935 of 2013 2 rate of Rs.6250/- per Marla. However, there was no dispute with respect to the land purchased vide sale deed No.17338 (Annexure P-2).
Thereafter, a notice under Rule 4 (1) of Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments), Rules, 1983 was served upon the petitioners by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bathinda-respondent No.2, stating that sale deed No.17335 dated 03.03.2009 had been registered at less market value. The petitioners appeared and filed their written objections. Thereafter, respondent No.2 called a spot report from the Tehsildar, Bathinda, regarding the said land, who gave his report vide letter dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure P-4). However, the petitioners were not associated at the time of spot inspection. On the instructions of respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, submitted another report vide letter dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure P-5). This report was also prepared without giving any notice to the petitioners. Consequently, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-6), holding that the land purchased by the petitioners vide sale deed No.17335 was under valued and thus, they were liable to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.1,36,624/- along with 12% interest. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a appeal before Commissioner-respondent No.1, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-8).
Upon notice, written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed, wherein it has been stated that one Subhash Sharma, Advocate, District Courts, Bathinda, had filed an application to the effect that the petitioners have purchased the land(s) at Bathinda and Gill Patti at the rate of Rs.60 lacs and Rs. 30 lacs per acre respectively, but they AJAY PRASHER 2014.10.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.11935 of 2013 3 have got sale deed No.17338 dated 03.03.2009 (pertaining to the area of Bathinda) executed at the rate of Rs.15 lacs per acre and sale deed No.17335 dated 03.03.2009 (pertaining to the area of Gill Patti) at the rate of Rs.10 lacs per acre. Upon this, the Sub Divisional Magistrate gave spot inspection report dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure P-5), stating that Khasra Nos.621, 622 of village Gill Patti and 5/1, 5/2 of Bathinda Patti Mehna form one compact block and have the same potential value. Acting on this report, value of the land of both the sale deeds was assessed at Rs.15 lacs per acre. Sale deed No.17335 dated 03.03.2009 was found registered at lesser rate and the balance excess value of the said land was amounting to Rs.17,07,812/-. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) the stamp duty of Rs.1,36,624/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-8). As per the respondents, the impugned orders do not require any interference in view of the above facts.
Heard.
The Commissioner, Faridkot Division-respondent No.1, after going through the records, came to a conclusion that the land purchased by the petitioners vide sale deed Nos.17335 and 17338, was part of one compact block and both sale deed entail equal potential value. The value of the land, purchased by the petitioners, as per Collector rates was Rs.20 to 22 lacs per acre. The Collector had already taken a lenient view while assessing value of the land with regard to sale deed AJAY PRASHER 2014.10.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.11935 of 2013 4 No.17335 at the rate of Rs.15 lacs per acre and had accepted sale deed No.17338. Hence, the registration of sale deed No.17335 by treating value of the land at the rate of Rs.10 lacs per acre was discarded by the competent authority and a direction has been rightly given to pay the deficient stamp duty by treating value of the land at the rate of Rs.15 lacs per acre.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to file any replication to controvert the stand of the respondents that both the land form part of the same block, as this was the consistent view taken by the Collector and the Commissioner vide orders (Annexures P-6 and P-8).
In the light of the above discussion, having examined the impugned orders, no ground is made out to interfere therein.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) 07.10.2014 JUDGE ajp AJAY PRASHER 2014.10.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh