HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2013 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 **** Amanbir Marwaha . . . . Petitioner VS. Sub Registrar, Jalandhar & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RC Setia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, Jalandhar as well as dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P4) of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dismissing his appeal against the above-stated Collector’s order whereby he has been directed to affix additional Stamp Duty and Registration Charges to the tune of Rs.8,34,855/- in respect of the property measuring 59 marlas situated in the Civil Lines, Jalandhar purchased by him vide sale deed dated 07.03.2005. (2). The undisputed facts are that the above-stated property though was comprising a residential house but a part CWP No.2013 of 2008.doc - 2 – thereof measuring 17 marlas was being used for commercial activities as a hotel-cum-restaurant known as “Green Hotel and Restaurant” by the previous occupier. The Collector has accordingly divided the entire building into two parts i.e. one comprising 17 marlas as ‘commercial’ and the remaining 42 marlas as ‘residential’. While the petitioner has been asked to affix Stamp Duty on the commercial part as per the rate prescribed for the ‘commercial properties’, the residential part has been assessed as per the rates prescribed for the ‘residential properties’. (3). The aggrieved petitioner contends that the entire property is a ‘residential house’ only located in a residential area known as Civil Lines, Jalandhar and the portion measuring 17 marlas also ought to have been treated as residential only. His second grievance is that four sale deeds of the same area produced by him in evidence to prove that the Stamp Duties were charged by treating all these properties as residential only, has been overlooked by the Authorities. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. I say so for the reason that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner pertained to the properties which were exclusively being used for 2 CWP No.2013 of 2008.doc - 3 – residential purposes only. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that a portion measuring 17 marlas of the subject property was being used as “Green Hotel and Restaurant”, namely, for commercial purposes and that part of the property was left with no ‘residential’ character. That being so, the petitioner’s case is distinguishable from those four sale deeds relied upon by him. (5). As regards determination of the market value of the property, suffice it to say that since the petitioner has been asked to affix Stamp Duty as per the Collector’s rate fixed for commercial/residential properties, no fresh determination by permitting the parties to lead their respective evidence was required to be undertaken. (6). Reliance placed upon the Division Bench judgement in Sukhjit Singh Cheema, Advocate & Ors. v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Chandigarh & Ors., 2008(4) PLR 484 also is of no assistant to the petitioner as in that case the Stamp Duty was directed to be charged on the basis of market value as on the date when the instrument was presented for registration and not as per the allotment price. The Division Bench further held that the market value, on the date when the instrument is presented, needs to be 3 CWP No.2013 of 2008.doc - 4 – determined by following the procedure laid down under Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules. (7). In my considered view, the ratio decidendi of the cited decision goes against the petitioner as in the instant case, the Authorities have charged the Stamp Duty as per the rate notified by the Collector which are invariably much less than the actual market value. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. (9). Dasti . 15.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4