CWP No.5644 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5644 of 2009 Date of decision: May 5, 2009. Iqbal Kaur ...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: S/Shri Amardeep Singh Gill & N.S. Sodhi, Advocates for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the respondents, more so when the orders under challenge are quasi judicial in nature. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 8.12.2008 and 28.1.2009 (Annexures P-5 and P-7) passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar respectively, whereby she has been directed to make good the deficiency in stamp duty to the tune of CWP No.5644 of 2009 -: 2 :- Rs.6,94,400/- plus registration fee and interest, i.e., Rs.7,10,636/- in respect of sale deed No.6927 dated 5.11.2008 and her appeal against the said order has also been dismissed. Two-fold contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is urged that the petitioner had purchased the subject land by way of an agreement to sell dated 5.5.1970 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and the said agreement was later on renewed on 20.11.1995. Thereafter, a suit for specific performance is stated to have been filed in the civil court at Jalandhar which was decreed on 3.12.2001. The subject sale deed has been registered in execution of the said civil court decree. On this premise, it is urged that the market value of the subject property as on the date when agreement to sell was executed, i., on 5.5.1970, alone would be relevant to determine the consequential stamp duty to be affixed by the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner has been asked to affix the additional stamp duty merely on the basis of the Collector's rate. It is urged that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act obligates the Collector to hold an inquiry and determine the market value of the property at the time of registration of the instrument. However, the Collector has not undertaken any such exercise and has determined the petitioner's liability in a mechanical manner. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any merit so far as the first contention is concerned. The Collector has rightly held that the market value of the property as on the date when the instrument is presented for registration, is to be kept in view for the purpose of affixation of the stamp duty and not when the alleged agreement to sell between the parties had CWP No.5644 of 2009 -: 3 :- taken place. The Collector has rightly referred to the binding judicial precedents on the issue. As regards the second contention, namely, the obligation of the Collector to determine the correct market value, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner appears to be right that the Collector rates can, at the best, be a piece of evidence to be relied upon while determining the market value of the property. Unfortunately, no exercise has been undertaken by the Collector to find out the actual market value of the subject property as on 5.11.2008 when the sale deed was registered. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 8.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, Jalandhar is set aside and as a necessary corollary thereto, the appellate order also cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Jalandhar for a fresh decision and in accordance with law. The Collector shall be required to determine the market value of the subject land on the date of registration of the sale deed, i.e., 5.11.2008 and accordingly the petitioner's liability to affix the additional stamp duty shall be re-determined. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has admittedly affixed the stamp duty on the absis of the so-called market value of the property in the year 1970 whereas the sale deed has been registered on 5.11.2008, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs with the Collector, Jalandhar within a period of two months from today and thereafter only her case shall be taken up by the Collector for afresh adjudication. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner without prejudice to her legal rights. Suffice it to say that in case the CWP No.5644 of 2009 -: 4 :- liability of the petitioner to affix additional stamp duty is found to be less than Rs.5 lacs, the excess payment, if any, made by her shall be refunded within one month thereafter. However, if the deposited amount falls short of discharging the petitioner's liability, she shall be liable to deposit the additional stamp duty, if any, to that extent. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs.5 lacs, as directed above, the writ petition shall be taken to have been dismissed and in that event the imposed orders shall be deemed to have attained finality. Dasti. May 5, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge