CWP no.8346 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8346 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.07.2010 **** Gurmeet Kaur and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. AS Sullar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 31st May, 2007 (Annexure P5) passed by the Collector, Sangrur as well as the order dated 3rd June, 2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, whereby, their appeal against the Collector’s order has been dismissed. Vide the first order the petitioners have been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,33,600/- towards the additional Stamp Duty Charges in respect of two sale deeds dated 28th December, 2005. CWP no.8346 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). While directing the petitioners to affix additional stamp duty, the District Collector observed as follows:- “Perused the Missal and on hearing, Advocate of purchasers, Tehsildar Sangrur was asked to inspect the spot and report that either this property comes within or outside of 5 kilometer distance from boundary/area of Municipal Council, in addition to this, if being cultivated or residential. Tehsildar Sangrur was asked to report about it, but no report was received at which Patwari was called along with record. Record was observed according to which Kothi has been constructed before consolidation, at Sr.No.27 of 99, kothi occupies land measuring 69 kanal 16 marlas. It is situated at the distance of 3 kilometer from city limit and it is residential area. After observing the records, Advocate of purchaser has asked to inspect the spot. At the request of Advocate of purchaser, spot was inspected personally, from which it is found that land area under sale deed is residential area. Mettaland road leads there. Name of the school etc. is also written at Kothi. Hence, report of Sub Registrar, Sangrur is found correct.” (Emphasis applied) (3). In view of the above-reproduced categoric finding of fact which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners also, it cannot be held that the land in question is agricultural land. No interference with the impugned orders dated 31st May, 2007 (Annexure P5) and 3rd June, 2008 CWP no.8346 of 2010.doc - 3 – (Annexure P1) is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (4). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.07.2010 vishal shonkar