IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003
Date of decision: 28th August, 2009
State of Haryana
... Petitioner
Versus
Tek Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the petitioner
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
House No. 293-A/ 14 situated at Chamanpura near Prem
Nagar Chowk, Rohtak was purchased by Tek Singh son of Maya Ram
Saini for a total consideration of Rs.2,02,000/- vide sale deed No. 7574
dated 23rd February, 2000 from one Suresh and Ramesh sons of Sube
Singh. One Surinder Kumar son of Radhey Kishan made a complaint to
the police that in fact the house was purchased for Rs.9.00 lakh and thus,
Tek Singh had not paid the stamp duty at Rs.7.00 lakh and the State
Exchequer has suffered a loss of Rs.1,08,500/-.
The Collector, after holding an inquiry, came to the conclusion
that the price of the residential house comes to Rs.2,53,700/-, therefore,
the purchaser is bound to pay Rs.8,014/- to the Government as deficiency
of the stamp fee. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by the
purchaser Tek Singh and the State of Haryana. The Commissioner upheld
the order and returned the following finding:
“I have heard the arguments of counsels of both the
parties and gone through the record. It seems that the action
under Section 47 of Indian Stamp Act against the appellant
Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003 2Tek Singh on this disputed sale deed has been taken on the
complaint made by respondent No.2. Yet complainant
appellant No.2 Shri Surender Kumar has alleged that the
property envisaged in the disputed sale deed has been
purchased by him from the complainant in Rs.9.00 lacs but
from the perusal of the file it reveals that in support of his
complaint he has not submitted any written or otherwise
document. So far as the enquiry got conducted through the
Police Department is concerned, the photocopy of the
respondent available on the file reveals that the statement of
the seller has no authenticity being there no signature of thumb
impression of him. After inspecting the file it shows that the
Collector himself has inspected the site property envisaged in
the sale deed and the value fixed for the property is in
accordance to the site. The provisions of the ruling produced
by the Learned Counsel 2001-1 CCC Page 413 are different
one from the facts because the action initiated by the Collector
were based on complaint for which he was competent.”
It was further held by the Commissioner that the appeal filed
by the State of Haryana cannot be entertained as the same was barred by
time. Aggrieved against the order, State of Haryana has filed present
revision petition.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, appearing for the respondent Tek Singh,
has taken a preliminary objection that the order passed by the appellate
authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is not revisable and
there is no provision in the Statute for filing a revision petition. He has
further stated that there is no manifest error, which is required to be
corrected by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Mr. Anil Rathee, appearing for the State of Haryana, has
stated that since the present revision petition was filed in year 2003, the
same be treated as a writ petition or a revision petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003 3
I have perused the findings recorded by the Collector and the
Commissioner. Based on the evidence, they have assessed the market
value of the residential house purchased by Tek Singh. In writ jurisdiction
or while exercising powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India,
this Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation of evidence.
Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and
the same is dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
August 28, 2009
rps