IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13088 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.08.2009 Amarjit Singh Chahal Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to the order dated 13.7.2007 (P3), vide which, the petitioner was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,63,417/- towards deficient payment of stamp duty on execution of sale deed dated 24.8.2004. It is an admitted fact before this Court that after passing of the order, within the period of limitation, no appeal was filed. The State of Punjab, vide notification dated 2.3.2009, added the following explanation in Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 (in short, the Rules):- “Explanation.- The consideration amount fixed at the time of allotment of immoveable property by any Government/ Semi Government organization shall be deemed to be the Collector’s rate and the stamp duty shall be charged for registration of documents upon the consideration amount fixed Civil Writ Petition No.13088 of 2009 by the Government/ Semi-government organization, provided that document is got registered by the original allottee within three months from the issue of this notification or within three months from the payment of last regular instalment as per Schedule of payment of such allotment.” By taking note of that explanation, the petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner on 11.5.2009, with the following prayer:- “So, it is requested that the order passed on 13.7.07 be ADC Jalandhar may be considered in the changed circumstances due to the notification by Revenue Dept of Punjab Govt and sale deed done on 24.8.04 may be accepted as per the consideration amount fixed by the Government as the applicant is original allottee of Plot No.653 Urban Estate Phase-I.” In that application, no challenge was laid to the order dated 13.7.2007 (P3). It was only requested that in view of explanation now added in the Rules, as mentioned above, the matter be reconsidered. The Commissioner sent that application for report to the Deputy Commissioner, who, vide his report dated 15.6.2009, has observed thus:- “With reference to the above subject, it is to inform you that there is no provision in the Punjab Government Notification No.16/2/200-S.T. 11/1772 dated 2.3.2009 for reconsideration of the cases wherein orders/ assessment of the Stamp Duty on the Sale Deeds have already been passed.” This Court feels that the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner is perfectly justified. The petitioner has not filed any appeal 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13088 of 2009 against order dated 13.7.2007. Thereafter, when explanation, as mentioned above, was added in the Rules, he moved an application for reconsideration of the matter. By taking note of the facts mentioned above, Deputy Commissioner is justified to say that vide explanation, no benefit was given to those whose sale deed already stood executed. This Court has also held in Central Warehousing Corporation v. State of Punjab and others, (CWP No.4426 of 2008), decided on 27.7.2009 that the explanation added, as mentioned above, is not retrospective in nature. Counsel for the petitioner states that the State was not justified in restricting benefit of registration of sale deeds, on the basis of price existing at the time when property was purchased, for a period of three months vide that explanation. This Court feels that once the petitioner is claiming under that very explanation, it is not open to him to lay challenge to the same. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that the authorities were not justified in demanding stamp duty on the basis of market value of the land existing at the time when sale deed was executed, is not justified. This plea possibly cannot be raised because the petitioner had not filed an appeal against order dated 13.7.2007, vide which, he was asked to pay an additional amount of stamp duty, as per market value of the land at the time when sale deed was executed. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 26.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3