CWP No.13128 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13128 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 **** Gurnam Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.08.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar Mohali which has been further upheld by the Commissioner, Patiala Division Patiala vide order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P6) whereby the petitioner has been asked to affix additional Stamp Duty of `46,500/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of its registration on the transfer deed dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure P2). (2). The undisputed facts are that vide the above- stated transfer deed, petitioner’s brother CWP No.13128 of 2009.doc - 2 – Lachhman Singh who was issueless, transferred his agricultural land in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner being the only sibling of Lachhman Singh was his sole legal heir as the parents of the petitioner had pre- deceased their son Lachhman Singh who also subsequently passed away. (3). Since the petitioner is a class-I legal heir of his deceased brother, he is exempted from payment of the Stamp Duty in terms of the Govt. notification dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P1). The respondents have denied the benefit of the aforesaid notification to the petitioner on the erroneous assumption that the mother of the transferor- Lachhman Singh was alive at the time of execution of the transfer deed. (4). The petitioner has placed on record the death certificate (Annexure P8) to show that Smt. Krishan Kaur mother of Lachhman Singh had died way back on 20.08.1990. This fact could not be controverted by the respondents. That being so, the petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the Govt. notification dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P1) and the consequential exemption from payment of stamp duty charges. CWP No.13128 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.08.2008 and 01.04.2009 (Annexure P3 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 28.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE