IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17698 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010. Jagdish --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) It is agreed to by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court passed in Civil Revision No.3530 of 1995 and other connected matters, wherein following observations have been made by this Court:- “ Sub Section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act clearly provides for reference to the Collector as soon as the Registering Officer registers the document and is of the opinion that the value fixed for determining the stamp duty is less than the market value. The Collector on receipt of the reference is required to determine the market value, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Sub Section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act. In the present case, this procedure was not adopted. The Registering Officer, after registration of the documents handed over the same to the vendees and it is only thereafter that he made the reference to the Collector. Sub Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act further empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings either on the receipt of the reference CWP. No. 17698 of 2009 -2- from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 in whose jurisdiction, the property is situated or on the receipt of the report of the audit by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Govt. or suo moto, within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instruments. In the present case, the Collector initiated the proceedings on reference being made by the Registering Officer after he had handed over the document to the vendee. None of the situation contemplated under sub sections (1) or (3) of Section 47-A has been adopted. The appellate authority has rightly allowed the appeals. I find no merit in these revision petitions which are accordingly dismissed.” The present controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement. Apart from the above, the Collector has based his findings on spot visit. Such a recourse is also impermissible in law. Based on spot visit the Collector has not opined that the land is non-agricultural. It is only recorded that the land is 1-2 acres away from the locality. The revenue record clearly shows that the land is agricultural. Spot visit cannot be made the basis for determination of the nature of land particularly when the land is duly recorded as agricultural land in the undisputed revenue record. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Appellate Authority are without jurisdiction and vide ab initio, same are hereby quashed.” This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Petitioner shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the aforesaid petition. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 9.8.2010. lucky