CWP No.11970 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11970 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 **** Sukhvir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. The Commissioner, Faridkot & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, Bathinda, which has been further upheld by the Commissioner Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide order dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P4). The petitioner has been, vide these orders, asked to affix additional Stamp Duty and registration fee on the sale deed dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure P1) of the house No.282 measuring 250 sq.yards situated in Urban Estate, Phase-II, Model Town, Bathinda. CWP No.11970 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The undisputed facts are that House No.282 measuring 250 sq.yards in Urban Estate, Phase- II, Bathinda was purchased by Jagjit Singh – respondent No.3 from the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) vide sale deed dated 26.03.2007 for a sale consideration of `8 lacs only. Hardly a week thereafter respondent No.3 sold the above-stated house to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 05.04.2007 for a sale consideration of `14 lacs. This is also not in dispute that as per the Collector’s rate, the value of the house in dispute as on 05.04.2007 was `8,75,000 only. (3). Respondent NO.4- a property dealer, with whom the petitioner and the seller both had some dispute, made a complaint that the subject-house was purchased by the petitioner actually for sale consideration of `46,25,000/-. In support of the said complaint he also appended photocopy of the alleged ‘agreement to sell’ entered into between respondent NO.3 and the petitioner. Relying upon the photocopy of the ‘agreement to sell’, the Collector vide the impugned order (Annexure P3) has directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty charges and registration fee charges on the CWP No.11970 of 2009.doc - 3 – assumption that the actual value of the house in dispute was `46,25,000/-. The petitioner’s appeal against the above-stated order has also been turned down by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide orders dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure P4). (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. (5). In my considered view the Collector’s approach in relying upon the photocopy of the ‘agreement to sell’, the execution whereof was seriously disputed and disowned by the petitioner and respondent No.3, is wholly erroneous in law. Suffice it to observe that Section 47-A of the Stamp Duty Act obligates the Collector to make a fact-finding enquiry and give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before determining the actual market value of the property in relation to which the instrument has been presented for registration. It is the conceded position that no other sale instance of the vicinity has been produced before the Collector by the complainant and/or the Sub-Registrar to suggest the prevailing market value of the similarly-situated properties. CWP No.11970 of 2009.doc - 4 – (6). On the contrary, the government agency, namely, PUDA sold the subject house to respondent No.3 for a sale consideration of `8 lacs only a few days before the sale in question took place. Not only this, even as per the Collector’s own notified rates also, the value of the subject house as on the date of registration of the sale deed was `8,75,000/- only. That being so, it was imperative upon the Collector to either rely upon such cogent evidence/proof which could belie the above-stated material or prove that the actual market value of the house was more than `46 lacs. The parties to the sale transaction have admitted the sale transaction of `14 lacs and the stamp duty and registration charges have been duly affixed as per the said sale consideration, namely, a rate much higher than the notified Collector’s rate. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 18.12.2007 & 03.12.2008 (Annexure P3 & P4, respectively) are hereby quashed and the complaint filed by respondent No.4 is rejected. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 28.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.11970 of 2009.doc - 5 –