Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Joint Sub Registrar, Dharuhera (Rewari), Haryana …Petitioner Versus M/s R.T. Packaging Company Limited and Another …Respondents AND 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008 M/s R.T. Packaging Company Limited …Petitioner Versus Joint Sub Registrar, Dharuhera (Rewari), Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner (In Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008) and for the respondents (In Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008). Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate for the respondent (In Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008) and for the respondents (In Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this order, Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 titled as Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 2 “Joint Sub Registrar, Dharuhera (Rewari), Haryana v. M/s R.T. Packaging Company Limited and Another” and Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008 titled as “M/s R.T. Packaging Company Limited v. Joint Sub Registrar, Dharuhera (Rewari), Haryana” shall be disposed off. The Joint Registrar, Dharuhera, registered a sale deed bearing No. 768 dated 31.12.1999 for sale of plot measuring 19973.625 square meters. The sale consideration noticed in the sale deed was Rs.2,00,00,000/- and a stamp duty of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid. Joint Registrar, Dharuhera, on 22.3.2000, made a reference to the Collector that there is a deficiency in payment of stamp duty as amount of sale deed was undervalued. The Collector, Rewari, vide order dated 16.3.2004 (Annexure P3) ordered recovery of Rs.15,92,037.50 ps. Against this order, an appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, upheld the order of Collector and dismissed the appeal. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Haryana. The Revisional Authority concluded as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “I have analyzed the contentions raised by both the parties and come to the conclusion that the reference was sent very late as the sale deed was executed on 31.12.99 but the reference was sent on 22.3.2000 i.e. 80 days after the execution of sale deed while as per the provisions in Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, it should have been made immediately. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 3 Haryana in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana RCR 91-2001(1) has held that reference made even after a period of 8 days was not maintainable. In Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana a Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 2004(1) PLR page 545 also upheld the above said view. Hence, I hold that the reference in this case was not sent immediately. Further, on whether the reference was made by a duly authorized officer or the Collector, the respondent has failed to place on record any letter or notification vide which Sh. C.R.Yadav was authorized to exercise the powers of the Collector. Regarding constructed area also, no evidence has been brought on record by the respondent to prove that the building was made of RCC. Thereafter, the contention of the revisionist that the constructed area was having cement sheets cannot be brushed aside. The report of Local Commission also does not inspire confidence as he has changed his stand and seems to have prepared the report in a casual manner. However, even as per the contention of the party, the calculation of stamp duty on the land and building ever as per the rates admitted by the revisionist and not adequately rebutted by the respondent, the calculation of stamp duty would be Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 4 as follows:- 1. Cost of land at the rate of Rs.700/- per square yard of 23769 = Rs.1,66,38,300/- stamp duty @ 12.5% amounts to Rs.20,79,787/-. 2. Cost of covered area of 3114 sq. yards @ Rs.160/- per sq. feet, 31149160 = 44,84,160/- stamp duty @ 12.5% amounts to Rs.5,60,520/-. 3. Total stamp duty would be Rs.20,79,787 + Rs.5,60,520/- = Rs.26,40,307/-. Therefore, the stamp duty would amount to Rs.26,40,307/-. The revisionist has already paid Rs.25.00 lakhs. Keeping all the above-said facts in view, I set aside the order dated 16.3.2004 of the Collector and order dated 24.8.2006 of the Commissioner. The revision petition filed by the revisionist is partly allowed and he is directed to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,40,307/- as stamp duty”. The order passed by the Revisional Authority has been assailed by the State of Haryana by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008. This order has been also challenged by M/s R.T. Packaging Company Limited by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State has submitted that the Revisional Authority Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 5 without any basis had ignored the report of the Local Commissioner. It is submitted that for brushing aside the report of the Local Commissioner, the Revisional Authority had relied upon conjectures and surmises and no reasons have been given in the impugned order. Mr. Kaushik further submitted that once the report of Local Commissioner was held to be bad, the Revisional Authority had proceeded to determine the market value without any basis and, thus, the figure arrived by the Revisional Authority is not justifiable and in no way confirm to any criteria or rationale. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the respondent in the writ petition filed by the State, has stated that the respondent is also not satisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Authority and has impugned the same by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 16387 of 2008. It is submitted that a contention was raised that Mr. C.R. Yadav was a City Magistrate and was not empowered to make a reference and this plea has also not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order passed by the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Since the contentions raised by the parties have not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority, the matter is remanded back to the concerned Authority. Both the parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 3.12.2009. The Revisional Authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned shall pass the order afresh. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Needless to say, both the Civil Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2008 6 parties shall be permitted to raise any additional ground, which is available to them, before the Revisional Authority. With the observations made above, both the writ petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 13, 2009 “DK”