Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 January, 2009

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                                     C.W.P NO. 1476 OF 2008
                                     DECIDED ON : 30.01.2009

Babu Singh
                                                 ...Petitioner
            versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                 ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

Notice of motion.

Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab accepts

notice on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated

13.03.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Sangrur,

whereby stamp duty has been levied on the sale deed @ 9%

instead of 6% and recovery of Rs.22,380/- is sought to be

effected from the petitioner.

The petitioner’s grievance appears to be that when the

same property, namely, a vacant plot was purchased by his

vendor, the stamp duty was affixed @ 6%. However, the

petitioner has been asked to affix the stamp duty @ 9% vide

impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner has sold the

subject property/plot and his vendee has also been permitted to

affix the stamp duty @ 6 %. There is, thus, an apparent
C.W.P NO. 1476 OF 2008 -2-

contradiction in the action of the respondent authorities which

leads to an inference of discriminatory treatment meted out to

the petitioner. Unfortunately, this aspect has not been addressed

by the authorities in their impugned orders.

The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the

guidelines (Annexure P-5) to be followed w.e.f 14.06.2006 and it

appears that 9% stamp duty is leviable only if the property has

been shown against Code ‘A’. According to the petitioner, the

subject property/plot has not been included amongst the

properties covered by Code ‘A’. On this premise also, the

petitioner’s contention is that not more than 6% stamp duty

would have been charged from him.

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-2 is set aside and the

matter is remitted to the Collector, Sangrur for a fresh decision,

in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made

herein above, within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

JANUARY 30, 2009                              (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                           JUDGE