CWP No. 14845 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14845 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.8.2010 M/s Delhi Punjab Goods Carriers (Regd.) ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar affirming order of the Collector dated 23.11.2009 under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable to the State of Punjab). 2. Vide sale deed dated 25.10.2005, the petitioner purchased property in question located at Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. The Sub- Registrar referred the matter to the Collector alleging undervaluation, as according to him, the value should have been Rs.30,60,000/- as against Rs.11,00,000/- shown in the sale deed. The Sub Registrar calculated the amount with reference to circle rate for residential building. The Collector determined the value by treating the property to be commercial by applying circle rate on that basis. CWP No. 14845 of 2010 -2- 3. On a writ petition being filed in this Court, vide order dated 16.9.2008, this Court remanded the matter for fresh decision after examining whether the property was commercial or residential. Thereafter, the Collector reiterated his earlier order which has been upheld by the Commissioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the property was residential and the same could not be held to be commercial. Only material on the basis of which the property was held to be commercial was report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-5). He submits that there is only passage to the property from the main road and the property on the back side could not be treated to be commercial. He referred to site plan, Annexure P- 2. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The order of the Collector clearly shows that the property is situated at the main road and surrounded by commercial premises. Earlier, it was a part of commercial premises and the petitioner also purchased the same for commercial purposes. The finding recorded is as under:- “At the spot, this land is used for commercial purpose. On this land a company is running in the name of Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier. On this place, loading and unloading of trucks take place. As per the orders of Hon'ble High Court all the situations have been examined and site plan is also prepared. The rooms shown in this area are used for keeping CWP No. 14845 of 2010 -3- boxes and only one room is there in which bed is lying for managers/drivers. At the spot, there is no cogent reason due to which this Ruqba cannot be considered as commercial area. This area/Ruqba is on the road. It is surrounded by the commercial area. It is contended by the party that this is residential area. It is illegal because prior to this, it was a part of commercial premises. The party had purchased this land for commercial purposes. Prior to this, SDM, Jalandhar I had also considered this Ruqba as commercial vide letter No. 1831/SDM, dated 27.11.2006 and till now this Ruqba is of commercial nature. This Ruqba/area is not residential in any manner. So, the mentioned Ruqba in Vasika No. 6429 dated 25.10.2005 is considered as commercial and the decision of Ex-Officer/Collector is upheld. It is ordered to recover from purchaser Rs.10,70,278/- along with 12% interest i.e. Rs.3,23,783/- which becomes Rs.14,03,061/- from 7.5.2007 till today. The Note should be issued to purchaser at Form-2 Separate Order should be on the file. The file should be deposited in the record room after order and completion.” 7. On appeal, the above finding has been affirmed. CWP No. 14845 of 2010 -4- 8. The Collector as well as the Commissioner have recorded valid reasons for holding the property to be commercial and have also referred to report made after site inspection, actual user of the property and its location. No interference is called for in exercise of power of judicial review unless the finding is shown to be perverse. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 25, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE