IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5127 of 2007 Date of decision: March 4, 2009. Rajwinder Singh ...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 Tajender Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.8.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, Sangrur, asking him to affix additional stamp duty of Rs.43.400/- on the transfer deed dated 14.8.2002. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 11.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, whereby his appeal against the above stated order of the Collector, Sangrur has been dismissed. The petitioner is a minor. His father has transferred land measuring 22 kanal 1 marla situated at village Bhawanigarh vide registered transfer deed dated 14.8.2002 in the petitioner's favour. It appears that an objection having been raised by the audit party in the year 2003, a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was made and pursuant thereto, the Collector, Sangrur has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to affix stamp duty of Rs.41,400/- on the transfer deed. The petitioner's appeal has also been turned down by the appellate authority. The petitioner's main contention before the Collector as well as this Court is that in view of the Govt. of Punjab notification dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P-2), no stamp duty is leviable in the case of agricultural land or rural residential property, if transferred by the owner in favour of his class one heirs and provided further that the property is located outside the lal lakir. The petitioner's positive case is that the land transferred by his father is an agricultural land located outside the lal lakir of village Bhawanigarh. The Collector, Sangrur, however, has turned down the petitioner's contention after observing that, “transfer deed has been got attested by Ajaib Singh in respect of urban property in favour of his son. There is a Nagar Council Bhawanigarh and this area is considered as urban”. The impugned order does not spell out as to whether the subject land falls within the limits of the notified Nagar Council or is located outside. If the land is located outside the notified limits of the Nagar Council and is also outside the lal lakir of the village and is an agricultural land, it would be totally unfair and discriminatory to deny the benefit of Govt. notification dated 21.12.2001 to the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, I am of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Collector, Sangrur. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 2.8.2005 and 11.7.2006 (Annexures P-3 & P-5 respectively) are set aisde and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Sangrur for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein-above. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. March 4, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge