Civil Writ Petition No.2183 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2183 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.03.2011 Smt. Sushila Rani .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner got a sale deed executed in her favour on 14.8.2003. The same was impounded on the ground that the stamp duty paid was deficient. The Registrar referred the same to the Deputy Commissioner, who imposed stamp duty of ` 3,96,800/- on the petitioner. Against this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Hissar, on 2.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner, who also dismissed the petition on 13.8.2009. The petitioner has, thus, challenged these orders through the present writ petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally showed less value as Civil Writ Petition No.2183 of 2010 -2- well as consideration on the sale deed with a view to evade stamp duty and therefore, the matter was rightly referred to the District Collector, Fatehabad, who had passed just and reasonable order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no material before the Collector to assess the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner. The Collector has fixed the rate on the basis of which, the petitioner has affixed the stamp duty. The recovery of sum of ` 3,96,800/- has been ordered primarily on the basis of a report given by the Tehsildar, who has statedly visited the area to find out the value of the land. The submission is that there was hardly any material before the Collector to return a finding in a proper manner to make valuation of the land. The Collector's rate is ` 16,000/- per sq.yards and still the petitioner has been asked to pay this extra stamp duty. I see justification in the prayer made by the petitioner. Sufficient material was not available before the Collector to conclude in a reasonable manner about the value of land. The Collector would have a right to determine this fact, once the matter is referred to him, but he cannot take decision wihtout proper material. The decision has to be passed on some material which is also required to be put to the petitioner, so as to enable her to file response to the same. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to re-determine the same by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties would be at liberty to place the material and evidence before the Collector to show what was the Civil Writ Petition No.2183 of 2010 -3- prevalent rate at the time when the petitioner got the sale deed registered in her favour. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. March 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE