CWP No.17981 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17182 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9 - 12 - 2009 Jaswant Singh etc. ....Petitioners v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon ....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Petitioners two minor sons of Ganga Ram had purchased 4 Bighas and 5 Biswas of land vide sale deed dated 4.8.2000. In the sale deed total sale consideration for purchase of the land reflected was Rs.4,90,000/-. On the audit objection raised, Sub Registrar, Narnaul made a reference to the Collector, Narnaul that the sale consideration shown in the sale was under-valued and, thus, there was deficiency in payment of stamp fee. According to the Auditor, as per Collector rate attracted for the land, the value of the land ought to be Rs.10,68,750/-. Thus, the sale consideration was under-valued to the extent of Rs.5,78,750/- and there was deficiency of the stamp duty to the extent of Rs.89,706/-. After the reference was made CWP No.17981 of 2008 [2] by the Sub Registrar, the Collector, Narnaul issued notice to the vendees who filed their reply. The vendees before the Collector projected that the circle rate of the cultivable land in Narnaul was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in the year 2000-2001 and the sale deed had been executed in consonance with the prevailing circle rate, whereas the Department took a categorical stand that the rate of cultivable land falling within the City Narnaul was Rs.4 lacs per acre, therefore, the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed was under valued. The Collector came to conclusion that the land fall within the City limits of Narnaul. Hence, the rate of land was to be assessed at Rs.4 lacs per acre. The order of the Collector was made subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. Petitioners being appellants submitted before the Appellate Authority that the land purchased was agricultural and was situated near Village Maandi at a distance of 7-8 Kilometers from Narnaul. They raised a grievance that the Collector had assessed the value of the land in dispute without inspecting the spot. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal observed as under:- “Having heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties carefully and perusing the documents available on the records of file of lower court minutely, it has been revealed that the land mentioned in the document is measuring 4 bighas, 5 biswas and 10 biswasis and is chahi (irrigated) land. A pumping set and a small room for installing electric motor has been established thereon. The appellants have mentioned in the documents that they have purchased the land for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- and have paid stamp duty CWP No.17981 of 2008 [3] amounting to Rs.75950/- on the said value. The said land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Committee. The Collector, Narnaul has inspected the spot pertaining to the land mentioned in the document and in his orders, he has stated that the rate of said land is fixed @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. The Auditor has also mentioned in his report that the sale deed has been got registered under value. Accordingly, I while upholding the orders passed by the Collector, hereby dismiss the appeal of the appellants being devoid of merits.” Mr.M.L.Saini appearing for the petitioners submitted that a grave error was committed by the Collector to fasten the petitioners with enhanced demand, by relying upon collector rate without holding any enquiry which is envisaged under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He placed relying upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and another v. M/s.Mahabir Solvent Plant, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 605. Counsel laid emphasis on paras 8 and 10 of the judgment which read as under:- “8. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 861: 2004(1) PLR 545, to contend that the order passed by the Collector was patently without jurisdiction inasmuch as the notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar to claim additional stamp duty which could not have been done. Para 3 of the judgment in the said reads as under:- “The petitioners have challenged the impugned notice on CWP No.17981 of 2008 [4] the ground that it is barred by time and is also ultra vires to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as inserted by Haryana Act No.37 of 1973 (for short, 1the Act') read with Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 and also on the ground that respondent No.3 does not have the jurisdiction to take action under Section 47-A of the Act.” 9. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that in the present case no opportunity of leading evidence was given to the respondent and the order was merely based on the audit objection raised by the audit party.” Reliance placed upon the judgment by counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. In the impugned order, Annexure P1, passed by the Collector, it has been specifically stated that notices were issued to the vendees as per rule. The vendees submitted their reply in response to the notices and further more in the impugned order, the contention of the vendees was noticed as under:- “During the course of arguments, the counsel for the vendees, only reiterated the statement of Jaswant vendee and facts mentioned in the reply to the notice and stated that as per the statement of Registry Clerk, the rate of cultivable land in Narnaul was Rs.1.50 lakhs per acre in the year 2000-2001 and the sale deed has been got registered for full value in CWP No.17981 of 2008 [5] accordance with the said prevailing rates and full stamp duty has been paid. ....” Therefore, it is not the case where merely on the basis of the audit objection ipso facto petitioners were made liable to pay deficiency in the stamp duty. Hence, the argument raised is untenable and is to be rejected. Sub Registrar on basis of the audit objection raised, within the period of limitation can make reference to the Collector and on issuance of notice, by affording due opportunity, the reference can be decided. Further more in the present case, two authorities below have given concurrent findings that the land in question was within the city limits and, therefore, prevailing circle rate was to be applied. Collector rate list for the year 2000-2001 has also been attached as Annexure R-2. Regarding nature of the land as to whether the same was rosli abbal or gair mumkin chahi, there was a finding of fact. There is no infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below. The orders passed by the two authorities are neither perverse nor perfunctory. No patent illegality has been pointed out. Thus, no interference is warranted and the present writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 9, 2009 JUDGE RC