CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7880 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 16 ,2011 Ishwar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner got a sale deed registered in his favour on 7.3.2005 from one Capt.Deepak Yadav son of Shri R.S.Yadav for a sum of `10,00,000/-. This is a house located in Sector 3, Part II, Rewari. Initially, R.S.Yadav, father of the seller, made a complaint to the Revenue Minister and accordingly action was taken to impound the sale deed by Sub Registrar. The matter went to Collector, who allegedly proceeded against the petitioner exparte and directed recovery of deficient stamp duty to the tune of `1,84,360/-. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7880 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioner approached the Collector for setting-aside the exparte proceedings and the order by moving an application, which was dismissed. He then filed an appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed. Apart from the grievance that the petitioner was not properly served, the counsel would also contend that Collector had assessed the market value of the property just by visiting the spot, which was never put to the petitioner. Counsel would contend that the petitioner was not given any chance to rebut the market value as determined by the Collector either upon a visit or otherwise and also to lead any evidence to show the market value of the property to ensure fair adjudication. Concededly, this order was passed only on the inspection carried out by the Collector or his representative, for which no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner either to rebut the evidence or to lead any evidence in support of the actual market value of the property. Concededly, the petitioner had affixed the stamp duty as per the Collector rates, which are also fixed on the basis of market value noticed during the relevant period. The impugned order, thus, apparently suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order can not be sustained and the same is set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector to re-consider the entire issue by giving opportunity to the respective parties to lead evidence in regard to the actual value of the property, for which the Court fee was required to be affixed. The Collector would give liberty to the Administration as well as the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7880 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: petitioner to lead evidence in this regard and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. May 16,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE