C.R. No.821 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.821 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 The State of Punjab .....Petitioner Versus Karnail Singh ...Respondent Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The order challenged in revision is one passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur allowing the appeal filed by vendee under a sale deed complaining against the order passed by the Collector under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act. By the adjudication rendered by the Collector, he found that the sale deed dated 01.08.1995 in respect of 26 marlas 7 Sarsai for sale consideration of Rs.27,000/- did not represent the correct valuation and the market value was Rs.2,51,708/-. The Collector took into consideration also the fact that there had been an agreement of sale in respect of the very same property earlier on 06.02.1995 where the sale consideration was Rs.2,35,000/-. Evidently it was a case of concealment of the actual market value. The Collector had, therefore, the requisite basis to come to the conclusion that the property had been undervalued and he assessed the value of the property to be Rs.2,51,708/- considering that the agreement which referred to 25 C.R. No.821 of 2003 (O&M) -2- marlas referred to the consideration of Rs.2,35,000/-. The order was perfectly justified but curiously the Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Collector by observing that there was no basis for revaluation of the property. The learned District Judge observed that the Collector did not consider the reports of the Tehsildar which showed that the property was only a cultivable land and the sale deed reflected the correct value. More than how report of the Tehsildar could be relied on, the best evidence would be how the parties themselves valued the land when there was an agreement of sale in respect of the very same subject matter. Indeed, the Tehsildar's report itself could not have been the basis for the decision of the Collector. What is required to be adjudicated in an enquiry under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is ascertainment of market value. The term market value connotes what a willing buyer would be willing to part with and what a willing vendor would be willing to sell the property for. That there had been a bargain between the parties for a higher price a few months earlier was definitely a relevant consideration, which would outweigh the report of the Tehsildar. The order passed by the learned District Judge is erroneous and is set aside. 2. The determination of value as done by the Collector is restored and the civil revision is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 20, 2009 Pankaj*