CWP No. 15036 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15036 of 2009 Date of decision November 3, 2011 Sonia Rani ....... Petitioner Versus District Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Sangrur and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG., Punjab for the respondents. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The order in challenge is the decision on appeal under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act where on an audit objection the State contended that the sale deed which had been registered on 7.8.2006 had been undervalued. The sale recited a consideration of `12,19,000/- on the basis of which the stamp duty has also been collected. The State assessed it as a commercial property and not an agricultural land and demanded a further stamp duty of `2,64,920/-. 2. The petitioner's contention is that even prior to the sale the petitioner had made a request to the Tehsildar, Sunam to inspect the spot to ascertain whether the property was a Chahi land or could be stated to be Gairmumkin plot. The Tehsildar after carrying out an inspection had endorsed that the property is cultivable at the spot and there were no separate plots. He, therefore, recommended that the rate of Chahi area could be applied. The reference to the nature of property as Chahi CWP No. 15036 of 2009 2 land and that it fell outside the limitation of the Municipal Committee were also incorporated in the sale deed. The counsel for the State would support the impugned order by saying that in the jamabandi the property has been shown as Gairmumkin Abadi and therefore the property must be assessed only as a commercial plot. I cannot accede to such a plea, for, the market value which is declared by the parties shall be how the property is used and how the purchaser and the seller perceived the transaction to be. The market price is invariably what a willing purchaser pays to a willing seller. If the parties transacted the property treating it as Chahi and spot inspection also revealed the same, there is no reason to suspect that there had been any under valuation of the property. The stamp duty paid already must have been taken as correct and there was no warrant for making any additional levy. The impugned order is set aside and the stamp duty paid already is ordered to be taken as correct. 3. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 3, 2011 archana