IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3643 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 12, 2008 Pawan Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge is to reference dated 13.11.2006 (P-1) and order dated 14.2.2007 (P-4), passed by the District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No. 3 and order dated 5.9.2007 (P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala-respondent No. 2. The petitioner presented a sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bhawanigarh, on 26.10.2006. After registration of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar-respondent No. 4 sent a report dated 13.11.2006 (P-1), under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to the District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No. 3, impounding the sale deed in question alleging that the value shown in the sale deed is deficient. The District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.11.2006 (P-2). After hearing the petitioner, the District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 14.2.2007 (P-4), holding that the area for C.W.P. No. 3643 of 2008 which the sale deed was presented by the petitioner is commercial in nature whereas it has been claimed that it is neither commercial nor commercial-cum-residential. The findings of the District Collector- respondent No. 3, as recorded in his order dated 14.2.2007 (P-4), reads thus:- “……The vendees along with their counsel Shri Satpal Sharma, Advocate appeared before the court and submitted their reply to the notice, stating therein that the area mentioned in the sale deed is neither commercial, rather the same is residential, the notice has been issued wrongly, that full stamp fee has been paid against the sale deed as per rate at the spot. The stamp paper has been affixed of the full value as per code 32-A of the rate list issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur and that the value mentioned in the notice is totally wrong. In the end, it has been stated that as per law, the Government is not authorised to fix the rates and requested to withdraw the notice and to stay the proceedings. The vendee has produced an affidavit sworn in by Smt. Pawan Rani wife of Shri Diwan Chand vendee and Tarsem Chand son of Kasturi Lal, Vendor in evidence, vide which the above said reply has been affirmed and sought adjournment to produce documents. Today, the case was fixed for production of documents and arguments. Despite being called repeatedly, neither the vendee nor his representative put in appearance. Perused the records and it has been 2 C.W.P. No. 3643 of 2008 revealed that the area in question is commercial area, situated in the Grain Market and to be transferred in the name of vendee from the New Mandi Township, Punjab, Chandigarh. Hence while agreeing with the report of Sub Registrar, Bhawanigarh, the value of area mentioned in the sale deed is fixed at Rs. 19,80,000/- and it is ordered to recover Rs. 86,100/- on account of stamp duty and Rs. 970/- towards the registration fee, totaling to Rs. 87,070/- on the remaining amount of Rs. 10,77,000/-.” The aforementioned order was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who upheld the view taken by the District Collector and held that the land in question was not agricultural land. As the land is commercial in nature, the market value of the same has to be accordingly determined. After hearing learned counsel and perusing the paper book we find that the constructed area belonging to the petitioner is admittedly situated in the New Grain Market, which by no stretch of imagination could be regarded as residential area and it has to be treated as commercial in nature. The case of the petitioner that it is residential area or at best residential-cum-commercial area cannot be accepted. In view of the specific finding recorded by the District Collector-respondent No. 3, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 3 C.W.P. No. 3643 of 2008 (SABINA) March 12, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4