Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.11.2009 Subhash Chander …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Amardeep Singh, Hardeep Singh and Rajinder Kumar entered into an agreement to sell their land in favour of Suhawa Ram, who was impleaded as respondent No.5. During the pendency of writ petition he died and his legal heirs Munshi Ram, Bula Ram, Kushalya Devi, Saroj Rani, Rajni, Goodi, Raj Rani and Amro Bai have been impleaded as respondents. Counsel for the petitioner made a reference to the agreement to sell and has urged that as per agreement to sell agreed rate of land for sale was Rs.1,16,000/- per killa. Counsel further states that agreement to sell was not acted upon and the parties approached for Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2009 2 mutation on basis of exchange. The exchange was rejected by Financial Commissioner Appeals-I on the ground that the same was a camouflage to transfer the property to evade stamp duty. Later Patwari gave report (Annexure P6) and assessed Rs.1,16,000/- rate of land per acre. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an evasion of stamp duty as petitioner had paid Rs.60,000/- per acre instead of Rs.1,16,000/- as a rate which was noticed in agreement to sell. On a question asked as to what locus standi petitioner has, petitioner has stated that he is a whistle blower. Purchaser had paid stamp duty at rate of Rs.60,000/-. The State was satisfied and had not come forward to impound the documents of transfer. The agreement to sell was executed on 6.8.1993. Report was submitted and the amount was paid. On 3.7.2008, Financial Commission held that Suhawa Ram had deposited the assessed stamp duty ordered by the District Collector. He also noticed that Subhash Chander, petitioner, has no interest in the property. The Financial Commissioner observed as under:- “I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had exchanged land with some party and that the mutation in respect of the land given by them in exchange had duly been sanctioned vide order dated 18.12.1993 and that in respect of the land received by them, the other party fraudulently set up the present respondent in the garb of a public man who alleged that rather than exchange it was a Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2009 3 case of under hand sale and the petitioners had evaded the stamp duty and that in respect of this exchange, the petitioners had even deposited the assessed stamp duty as assessed by the revenue authorities and the District Collector had ordered that since the assessed stamp duty had been deposited within two months with the Tehsildar-cum- Sub Registrar, Fazilka, the mutations were required to be sanctioned. The learned counsel for the respondent admitted that he had no interest in the land and his client had made the complaint only as a public spirited person. When questioned as to under what provision of revenue law, he could file litigation for wrong sanctioning of the mutation, the counsel for the respondent was unable to throw any light. Under these circumstances, I strongly feel that the respondent has only been harassing the petitioners for reasons best known to him and the order of the Commissioner disallowing the sanctioning of mutation could not be sustained and the same is set aside and the order of the Collector vide which he had maintained the sanctioning of the mutation and had refused to cancel the mutation, is upheld. Announced”. Civil Writ Petition No. 783 of 2009 4 In a private transaction between Amardeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, Rajinder Kumar and Suhawa Ram, petitioner has no concern. The Government has accepted the stamp duty upto the Financial Commissioner. Assessment and deficiency of the amount accepted, as per the contention of the petitioner, is barred by limitation. Petitioner, for ulterior reasons to satisfy his own axe, has come forward in the private affairs of others. Therefore, this writ petition being frivolous, and vexatious has only wasted time and energy of the Court, therefore, petitioner is required to be fastened with the cost of Rs.25,000/-. Cost shall be recovered by the Registry of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 17, 2009 “DK”