Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Central Warehousing Corporation vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 July, 2009
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CWP No.
4436 of 2014 titled as Central Warehousing Corporation v. State of
Punjab and others (hereinafter called as the 'First Petition') and CWP No.
4451 of 2014 titled as Central Warehousing Corporation v. State of
Punjab and others (hereinafter called as the 'Second Petition') as the issue
involved in both these petitions is common. However, for the sake of
convenience, facts are being extracted from the first petition.
State Of Punjab & Others vs Parshotam Dass & Another on 2 August, 2010
However, in the case of Parshotam Dass (supra) SLP was
granted and it was converted to Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2014. The said
appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.8.2015 stating
"we have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. Having gone
through the records of the case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal, being devoid
of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
Ordered accordingly."
The Mohali Club vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 May, 2010
In reply, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that
though there is no dispute about the notifications issued from time to time
but no evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner to prove the
date of allotment of the land for the purpose of execution of sale deed. She
has empathetically submitted that in Explanation to Rule 3A, the word is
'allotment of immovable property' and not 'the execution of the sale deed.'
Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that even
if it is presumed that a portion of the land has been given to the petitioner
out of the acquisition but the petitioner has already made the payment of the
piece of land which is not denied by the respondent. It is submitted that
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 05:41:08 :::
CWP No. 4436 of 2014 with
CWP No. 14451 of 2014 -8-
once the amount has been paid, it was only a formal execution of
registration of sale deed and for that matter, the law has been relaxed by the
State of Punjab by adding explanation to the rules in which it is provided
that if the execution of sale deed is effected within 3 months from the
issuance of the notification, then the amount fixed at the time of allotment
has to be seen and not at the time of registration of the document. Similar is
the position with the notification issued on 31.3.2010 by which Rule 3B was
added and further amended on 30.9.2011. Therefore, the respondents are at
fault in asking the petitioner to pay the amount of more than Rs.one crore
towards the deficiency of stamp duty, by assessing the value of the land to
the tune of more than Rs.12 crores. The very fact that this Court had
already decided this issue in the cases of Mohali Club and Purshotam Das
(supra), which had attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of
the considered opinion that the order passed by the Collector and the
Divisional Commissioner are totally illegal and thus, while allowing both
the petitions, the impugned orders are set aside, though without any order as
to costs.
Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 47A in Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Mohali Club Mohali on 6 January, 2014
Be that as it may, the LPA No.
892 of 2010 titled as State of Punjab and others v. The Mohali Club was
dismissed by the Division Bench on 2.8.2010 in view of the order passed in
LPA No. 891 of 2010 titled as State of Punjab and others v. Parshotam
Dass and another.
1