IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1303 of 2010 M/s R.K.Rice Mill, Tohana Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: None for the parties. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Recovery of ` 1,12,375/- on account of deficient stamp duty has been imposed on the petitioner. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition to impugn the same. Grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities failed to consider that there was no inspection report of any officer on the file and accordingly finding that the building was inspected by the Collector is without basis. The petitioner would also refer to certain other considerations, like high voltage electricity line, which is passing over the rice sheller to plead that the value of the property had not been done properly. The respondents, on the other hand, would justify the deficiency on the ground that audit report was received from the Stamp Auditor and thereafter Collector, Tohana had determined the value of the sale deed as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act after inspection report by Sub-Registrar. While issuing notice in this case, this court had granted interim stay on the condition that 50% of the amount, required to be deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner concededly deposited a sum of ` 56,200/- as 50% of the deficient amount. Otherwise, the respondents have boldly denied the assertions made by the petitioner to urge that the valuation of the property was not done property. I am of the view that the case of the petitioner has not been rightly and fairly considered by the Collector. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by remanding the case back to the Collector to re-consider the issue in the light of pleas raised by the Civil Writ Petition No.1303 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce any material to show the valuation of the property, which shall be considered by the Collector and an appropriate order passed in accordance with law. The 50% amount of the deficient court fees as deposited by the petitioner need not be refunded to him. The Collector would be at liberty to pass any order and the amount so deposited by the petitioner could then be adjusted depending upon the final order passed by the court. March 24, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE