HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18515 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 **** M/s. Shivjot Developers & Builders Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.18515, 18516, 18517, 18519, 18523, 18526, 18530, 18536 & 18556 of 2009 as the issues involved in these cases are common in nature. Facts for brevity are being extracted from CWP No.18515 of 2009. (2). The petitioner is a Developer and Builder who seeks quashing of the order dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali which has been further upheld by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P7), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs.2,80,000/- along with CWP No.18515 of 2009.doc - 2 – interest in respect of the land measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa situated within the revenue estate of Village Khanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 04.01.2006. The solitary issue which that arises for consideration is as to whether the above-stated land is to be treated as ‘agricultural’ land and/or its potentiality as a ‘residential’ or ‘commercial’ area being in close proximity of the Union Territory Chandigarh/Tricity, is to be kept in view for the purpose of determining its market value? It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the market value of the land in question needs to be determined on the basis of its condition as on the date of sale and not keeping in view the future potential value. Reliance is placed on two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in (i) Sarvahitkarini Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 104; (ii) Mukesh (Minor) v. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad & Ors., 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 67. The petitioner also relies upon the decisions of this Court in (i) Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 581; (ii) Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 217; (iii) Madan Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 462; 2 CWP No.18515 of 2009.doc - 3 – & (iv) Rajiv Passi v. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, 2008(2) ILR (P&H) 88 to urge that the Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 47A is obligated to hold a fact-finding enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and then only to determine the market value. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad, 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 318 are also pressed into aid to contend that merely because the fact that the land is situated close to a posh colony with high income group people residing, no inference can be drawn that it was of high potential value. (3). Learned State counsel, on the other hand, urges to take judicial notice of the fact that the location of the land is very close to Chandigarh and Mohali urban areas and is an integral part of the fast developing residential/commercial townships around Chandigarh. She urges that the petitioner is admittedly a Developer and Builder who has not purchased the land for carrying agricultural purposes. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record with special reference to the location of the land, it appears to me that mere entry in the revenue record depicting the land in question as 3 CWP No.18515 of 2009.doc - 4 – ‘agricultural’ is not a conclusive proof of its end use for agricultural activities only. The well-known principles laid down in the cited decisions are to be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. It is indeed not disputed that the land in question is capable of being utilized for ‘residential’ or ‘commercial’ purposes as on date and/or has been actually utilized for such non-agricultural purposes. Such an inference is further fortified by the enquiry report dated 15.11.2007 submitted by the Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Kharar, the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “The total area of this Vasika is 2 bigha 8 biswa. At the spot the area has been purchased by Shivjot Developers and Builders Ltd. At this time, they have raised fencing of the area and multistory flats are being constructed. Therefore, this may be called residential area and its price should be determined as per the residential rates determined.” (5). The land in question thus cannot be treated as agricultural land nor it has ever been utilized by the petitioner(s) for the said purpose. The market value of the land ought to be determined by the Collector keeping in view its current usage and not the one reflected in the revenue records for years. 4 CWP No.18515 of 2009.doc - 5 – (6). Having regard to the scope of interference in such like concurrent findings of fact returned by a quasi-judicial authority, no case to tinker with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. (7). Dismissed. (8). However, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner(s) has/have approached this Court in the year 2009, it is directed that if the petitioner(s) make good the deficiency of Stamp Duty and Registration Charges within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, no additional interest w.e.f. 01.12.2009 till the actual deposit of the amount shall be charged from him/them. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 15.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 5