CWP No.1504 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1504 of 2009 Date of decision: February 20, 2009. Market Committee, Kapurthala ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.P. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.1501, 1503, 1504 and 1523 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.1504 of 2009. The petitioner – Market Committee, Kapurthala seeks quashing of the notification dated 23.8.2002 issued by the Punjab Government as well as the orders dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) and 1.8.2008 passed by the Collector, Kapurthala and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, asking the petitioner to affix additional stamp duty/registration charges in CWP No.1504 of 2009 -: 2 :- respect of Plot No.21 in the New Mandi Township at Kapurthala which was purchased by it in an open auction held on 23.1.1973. The petitioner- Committee, after payment of the due installments, presented the conveyance-deed for registration on 23.11.2005. Though the conveyance deed was duly registered, however, on 27.2.2006, the petitioner received a notice from the Collector, Kapurthala initiated proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner submitted its reply but the same has been turned down by the Collector who vide his impugned order dated 12.1.2007 has directed the petitioner to affix additional stamp duty on the plea that in view of the government notification dated 23.8.2002, the market value of the property for the purposes of the stamp duty charges has to be determined on the date of presentation of the conveyance deed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the appellate authority-cum-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. During the course of hearing, it is fairly conceded that the validity of the notification dated 23.8.2002 and consequential demand raised by the respondents to affix stamp duty as per the market value of the property on the date of presentation of the sale deed/ conveyance deed, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2008 rendered in CWP No.11530 of 2005 (Sukhjeet Singh Cheema, Advocate v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & CWP No.1504 of 2009 -: 3 :- Ors.). For the reasons assigned by this Court in Sukhjeet Singh Cheema's case (supra), there is no merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. February 20, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge