Maple Builders And Developers … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 August, 2009

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH


                                       Civil Writ Petition No.12883 of 2009
                                              Date of Decision: 24.08.2009


Maple Builders and Developers Private Limited
                                                                    Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                                 Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

Present:     Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner


                          .....

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

Vide order dated 15.11.2007 (P6), an amount of Rs.89,000/-

was demanded from the petitioner, towards payment of deficient stamp duty

for executing a sale deed No.157 on 13.4.2006. Against that order, appeal

filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 24.9.2008 (P8). Hence, this

writ petition to lay challenge to those orders.

It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in demanding

the additional amount from the petitioner, the Collector has not complied

with the provisions of Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899. No

enquiry was conducted, order was passed at the back of the petitioner and

amount was claimed without any justification. Counsel further argued that

no opportunity to the petitioner was given, to rebut that value of the land

purchased is less than the one, assessed by the Collector.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that no

case is made out for interference.

Civil Writ Petition No.12883 of 2009 2

Record reveals that the petitioner purchased 12 kanals of land

vide sale deed dated 13.4.2006, which was executed for an amount of

Rs.24,16,500/-. A complaint was received by the Collector that, in fact the

land was purchased @ Rs.26 lacs per acre, however, the sale deed was got

executed for a lesser amount. With that complaint, copy of the agreement to

purchase, executed by the petitioner with the owner of the property, in

dispute, was also annexed. Despite notice, the petitioner failed to appear,

however, seller of the land came present. Even then the Collector took all

precautions to verify value of the property, in dispute. On enquiry

conducted, it was found that land is situated on the main road and has

commercial value. Taking note of the value of the land, mentioned in the

agreement to sell and situation of the property, in dispute, additional amount

of stamp duty was demanded. The petitioner went in appeal. In its grounds

of appeal, not even a word was stated that agreement to sell was not

executed and the copy produced thereof was forged. Attempt was made to

lay challenge to order of the Collector only on technical grounds. The

Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by observing

that once higher value of the land is reflected in the agreement to sell itself,

the Collector was justified in demanding additional amount towards

deficient stamp duty earlier paid.

Before this Court also, counsel for the petitioner has failed to

show that agreement to purchase the property was not executed.

In view of fats mentioned above, this Court feels that the orders

passed by the authorities below are perfectly justified.

Dismissed.

24.08.2009                                   (Jasbir Singh)
gk                                               Judge