IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12331 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.04.2010 Har Bhagwan Dass @ Har Bhagwan ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ----- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, complaining of under valuation of the property in the sale deed presented for registration by the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is that valuation found in the sale deed was as per the Collector's valuation itself and there had been no deliberate under valuation. He would also refer to another sale deed registered on the same day namely on 23.05.2005 by another person and the very same Collector had upheld the valuation as found in the document treating the Collector's valuation of the property at Rs.4 lakh per acre. In this case, the Collector had made the invidious discrimination by pointing out that the Halqa Patwari had given a report that the property was worth Rs.22,000/- per marla and the Collector had himself inspected the Civil Writ Petition No.12331 of 2009 - 2 - property and found that it was proximate to Hans Colony and the Government Girls College on Bhodia Road. 2. The adjudication relating to valuation could never be done by a report of a Patwari or an ocular inspection unless they are backed with material documents to show that the valuation of the property in its vicinity had been more and there were registered documents showing a higher valuation for the property. The Collector's valuation is definitely only a guide and it may not be conclusive and if the valuation as found in the document is sought to be impugned as under valued, although it conforms to the Collector's valuation, there ought to be tangible material on the basis of which alone the Collector's evaluation could obtain an additional relevance. Again, there is simply no justification as to why the same Collector who found the document registered on the same date in the vicinity of the property was to be treated differently and if the valuation in yet another document was approved, there was no reason why a different yardstick could have been applied to the petitioner alone. 3. The order is vitiated on two counts: (i) the basis of a higher valuation by a mere ocular observation of the Collector than tangible material and (ii) on the basis of the invidious distinction that has been made between two transactions on the same day. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.04.2010. sanjeev