CWP No. 5640 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5640 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.9.2008 Jagtar Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Hooda, Senior DAG, Punjab. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Collector on 27.10.2003 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short `the Act') and the order passed by the Commissioner on 23.4.2007, affirming the order passed by the Collector. The petitioners have purchased 2 kanals of land by virtue of a registered instrument dated 5.9.2001, for a total consideration of Rs.80,000/-. On 3.10.2002, a reference was also made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector to initiate the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act on account of deficient stamp duty on the said interment. The learned Collector determined the value of the land in question at Rs.7,80,000/- and directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1,08,270/- to make up the deficiency in payment of the stamp duty. The said order has been affirmed in appeal as well. The learned Commissioner has found that though the land purchased is residential, CWP No. 5640 of 2008 (2) but the petitioners have reflected the same to be agricultural one. It was further found that as per the norms of the Collector's rate for the year 2001-02, the price of the residential property i.e. the property in question, comes to Rs.7,80,000/-, therefore, the deficiency in payment of the stamp duty is to be made good by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Collector's rate could not have been taken into consideration for determining the price of the land purchased by the petitioners. Though the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be attractive, yet we do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities as the petitioners have reflected the land to be an agricultural land in order to avoid the payment of the stamp duty. Since the very basis of the execution of the instrument was based upon the falsehood, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 5.9.2008 ds