Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1991 Date of decision: 14.09.2011 Bikram Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9671, 9672, 9675 and 9676 of 1991. Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate appears for Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate in these cases and prays for short adjournment to get instructions. The prayer for adjournment is declined and thereafter the counsel pleads that his presence be not marked. 20 years ago the petitioner had filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the Collector on 10.11.1988 and orders dated 31.07.1989 and 06.11.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the extra stamp duty of ` 3,750/-. The petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to charge this extra stamp duty. The petitioner had purchased land measuring 73 kanals 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1991 2 marlas at the rate of ` 5,412/- per acre and the same was registered with the Registering authority i.e. Sub Registrar. One Om Parkash Waleja filed a false complaint against the petitioner alleging that he had purchased this land at a lower rate than the market rates and as such he had defrauded Government by evading the stamp duty. The Collector issued notice to the petitioner and he appeared before the Collector through his counsel. Through the impugned order dated 10.11.1998, the Collector held that the market price of the land of this kind in the area was determined as ` 7,710/- per acre, while the sale was effected at the rate of ` 5,412/- per acre. The difference in the total value was ` 29,178/-. The Collector, accordingly, determined the stamp duty of ` 3,750/-, which was required to be paid in addition to the stamp duty paid. Pleading that the land purchased yielded no crop or very paltry crop, the petitioner approached this Court with the grievance that the Collector had wrongly assessed the value of the land at ` 7,710/- per acre. Clause 3 of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act authorize the Collector to take action in the matter of evasion of stamp duty suo motu. While exercising these powers, the Collector has to act in a judicial manner and pass order after holding an inquiry and then proceed to find out if there was any under valuation of the land. The petitioner was called upon to produce evidence before the Collector. As per the petitioner, he had shown that the market value of the particular land purchased by him did not exceed the price fixed in the sale deed. The petitioner claims to have referred Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1991 3 to instances before the Collector. As per the petitioner, the Collector arrived at the conclusion on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector before the Additional District Judge. The appellate authority, however, did not go into the challenge on the ground that the same was not under challenge before it as only the aspect of penalty was challenged. The petitioner thereafter filed review, which was also disposed of on the ground that it was not pressed. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Collector. It was argued on behalf of the State that market price in this village is assessed by the Committee constituted under the Chairman of SDO (c) by the Government on 13.05.1988 and price was found to be ` 7710/- per acre. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the land was Brani was duly considered by the Collector. The Collector had noticed that in order to work out average market price of this kind of land, the Punjab Government had constituted the Committee headed by SDO (c). The Committee after considering the local situation had taken into account the proper consideration. The order passed by the Collector is well reasoned one and does not suffer from any infirmity, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is primarily a factual controversy, which the petitioner would raise in regard to the price of the land that is prevalent in the area. Before the appellate Court, the Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1991 4 petitioner had only challenged the imposition of penalty and had not challenged the recovery of stamp duty. The appellate Court after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 47-A of the stamp Act held that the penalty of ` 7,500/-, as imposed, was not recoverable and the appeal was partly accepted. There is no cause or reason made out for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9672, 9675 & 9676 of 1991 These writ petitions were ordered to be heard alongwith CWP No. 9671 of 1991 as identical issue arise for consideration in this case. The impugned order is also almost identical. The reasoning given by the Collector and those of the appellate authorities are also the same. In view of the reasons noted above, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. September 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE