IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2920 of 2009
Date of decision: February 25, 2009.
Ashutosh Garg & Anr.
...Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. – (Oral):
Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 only. Mr. Rajesh
Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on
their behalf.
In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there
is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the official respondents.
The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 4.2.2008
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar whereby they, along
with their co-vendees, have been asked to affix additional stamp duty to the
tune of Rs.59,400/- besides registration charges of Rs.6,000/- on the sale
deed dated 30.10.2006 whereby land measuring 15 marlas was purchased by
the petitioners in village Karoran, District Mohali. They are also aggrieved
at the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala
(Annexure P-2) dismissing their appeal.
One of the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that
notice dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-4) was served upon petitioner No.2
after the date fixed, i.e., 14.1.2008. On this premise, it is argued that the
petitioners have not been heard nor an opportunity to lead evidence to show
that the sale deed was got registered on the prevailing market value has been
afforded to them.
It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Collector,
SAS Nagar that the petitioners’ co-vendee, namely, respondent No.5 was
duly served and heard before passing the impugned order. However,
considering the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner that given an
opportunity, they would have led evidence to show that the stamp duty was
affixed as per the prevalent market value, more so when the Collector
thought it proper to issue notice to the petitioners (Annexure P-4) but
proceeded to decide the case without effecting service on them, I am of the
considered view that the matter requires reconsideration. Suffice it to say
that under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector is
obligated to determine the market value for the purposes of stamp duty
charges after observing principles of natural justice which includes
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the vendees as well.
For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar is set
aside. As a sequel thereto, the appellate order dated 6.8.2008 also cannot
sustain and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector,
SAS Nagar for a fresh decision in accordance with law. the Collector, SAS
Nagar is directed to decide the matter within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to the condition
that meanwhile the petitioners, along with their co-vendees, shall deposit
the demanded amount of Rs.65,400/- towards stamp duty and registration
charges, though without prejudice to their legal rights. Suffice it to say that
on re-determination if the Collector holds that the petitioners are not liable
to pay the afore-stated stamp duty/registration charges, the same shall be
refunded within a period of one month from the date of such decision.
However, if the liability is determined on the higher side, the petitioner shall
be given an opportunity to make good the deficiency thereof.
February 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge