Civil Writ Petition No.2648 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2648 of 2009 Date of decision:20.08.2009. Yadav Rai ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jasminder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the order dated 03.11.2006 (P-2), vide which Collector demanded an additional amount of Rs.43,400/- towards deficient stamp duty and Rs.6,200/- towards registration fee. Further challenge is to the order dated 29.08.2007 (P-4), vide which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner got registered a gift deed for land measuring 100 square yards. At the time of registration, the property was projected as a residential accommodation. Objection was raised. The gift deed was impounded and for assessment of stamp duty, matter was referred to the Collector, Civil Writ Petition No.2648 of 2008 -2- who, after looking into situation of the property and a fact that it has been converted into a shop-cum-flat, ordered that deficient stamp duty be paid. Commissioner upheld the order by taking note of the observations made by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before arriving at the conclusion that deficient stamp duty was paid, the Collector had not conducted an inquiry. The argument raised is not very sound. It has come on record that the property is situated at Khudi Road, Barnala, which is commercial center of the city. It has also been noticed by the Collector that, at the spot, shop-cum-flat has been constructed, instead of the residential accommodation. It is common knowledge and has also been indicated in the rate fixed by the Collector that value of the property, which is involved in this writ petition, is not less than the amount assessed by the Collector. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. August 20, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE