IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P NO. 2465 OF 2009
DECIDED ON : 16.02.2009
M/S Gurgaon Industrial Cons. (P ) Ltd.
...Petitioner
versus
The Commissioner and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
Notice of motion.
Mr. R. D. Sharma, Senior DAG, Haryana, accepts
notice on behalf of all the respondents.
Keeping in view the nature of order which I propose to
pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file
any counter-affidavit.
The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated
27.06.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Gurgaon,
whereby it has been asked to affix the additional stamp duty of
Rs.6,08,710/- in respect of Plot No. 452 measuring 540 sq. mtrs
situated in Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, re-allotted in the
petitioner’s favour by HSIDC. The petitioner is also aggrieved at
the order dated 06.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-cum-Appellate Authority, upholding
the aforementioned order of the Collector.
C.W.P NO. 2465 OF 2009 -2-
The impugned order passed by the Collector reveals
that the Stamp Auditor, Gurgaon has sent a report dated
27.04.2007 pointing out some alleged deficiency towards the
stamp duty at the time of registration of the conveyance deed.
Accepting the said report, the Collector has passed the impugned
order, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
” I have seen the report of Stamp Auditor Gurgaon
and have also heard the counsel for the seller. After
hearing and perusing the Wasika, I have reached the
conclusion that the seller was re-allotted the aforesaid
plot No. 452 measuring 540 sq. mtrs. Phase-IV,
Industrial Estate, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon by the
department of HSIDC, Gurgaon. The aforesaid Wasika
has been got registered on a lesser value on which as
per Stamp Auditor Rs.5,94,710/- is deficient towards
stamp and Rs.14,000/- are payable towards
registration fee which is assessed correctly. Hence, I
ordered that on the aforesaid Wasika Rs.5,94,710/-
towards deficient stamp duty and Rs.14,000/- towards
registration fee, totaling Rs.6,08,710/- both towards
stamp and registration fee be recovered from the
seller”.
C.W.P NO. 2465 OF 2009 -3-
As may be seen, the Collector has mechanically
accepted the report of the Stamp Auditor overlooking the
statutory obligation cast upon him under Section 47-A(2) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in terms whereof the Collector is
required to determine the market value on consideration of the
relevant material. The Stamp Auditor’s report could at the best
be a piece of evidence for determining the market value of the
property. It could not have been the sole basis to fasten the
liability upon the petitioner to pay any additional stamp duty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Punjab and
others vs. Mohabir Singh and others” (1996) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 609.
For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2007 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Collector, Gurgaon, is set aside and in sequel
thereto, the appellate order dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure P-3)
cannot sustain and the same is also quashed. The matter is
remitted to the Collector, Gurgaon for fresh decision in
accordance with law.
The needful shall be done within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
FEBRUARY 16, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE