IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18044 of 2008. Date of Decision: 2nd March, 2009. Shri Jainendra Gurukul ....Petitioner through Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 18044 and 18051 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 18044 of 2008. The petitioner – Shri Jainendra Gurukul is aggrieved at the orders dated 22.12.2006 and 21.11.2007 [Annexures P2 and P6] passed by the Collector, Panchkula and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala whereby it has been asked to pay the additional stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the sale deed dated 16.11.2004. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply/affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the sale consideration for the subject land was paid by the petitioner out of the compensation amount received by it for compulsory acquisition of its agricultural land by the State of Haryana. Relying upon the government instructions dated 9.10.1996 [Annexure P-4], it is urged that since the petitioner has purchased agricultural land within a period of two years from the date of receipt of the compensation for acquisition of its agricultural land, the sale transaction is liable to be exempted from the payment of stamp duty as provided under these instructions. It is also urged that these instructions were specifically relied upon before the Appellate Authority but the appeal has been dismissed mechanically without reference thereto. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the question as to whether or not the petitioner purchased the subject land by investing the compensation amount received by it on account of compulsory acquisition of its agricultural land thereby attracting the government instructions dated 9.10.2006, is a question of fact to be determined by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner is able to prove that the sale consideration was paid by it out of the compensation amount received on acquisition of its other agricultural land, the Collector would be obligated to further examine as to whether or not the benefit of instructions dated 9.10.2006 [Annexure P-4] is admissible to the petitioner. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 22.12.2006 [Annexures P2] is quashed. For the same reason, the order passed by the Appellate Authority can not sustain and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Panchkula who shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the aforesaid plea. The fresh orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed by the Collector, Panchkula within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. March 2, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE