CWP No.9763 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9763 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 **** Mandeep Pathak . . . . Petitioner VS. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. VM Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Sonal Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9762 to 9765 of 2009 as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.9763 of 2009. (2). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P4) passed by the Collector, Ludhiana which has been further upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 24.02.2009 (Annexure P5). Vide these orders, the petitioner has been asked to deposit additional stamp duty/registration fee to the tune of `2,41,776/-. CWP No.9763 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). It is the conceded position that the petitioner purchased a plot abutting Ludhiana-Chandigarh road with 167 ft. length and 30 ft. width and measuring 666.66 sq.yards vide regd. Sale deed No.19462 dated 18.02.2005. The plot has been admittedly utilized by the petitioner for commercial purposes though was purportedly purchased as an agricultural land. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the plot purchased by the petitioner is of commercial nature and as such he was liable to affix the stamp duty as per the Collector’s rate notified for the commercial properties of the locality. The petitioner’s contention that at the time of its purchase, the land was agricultural cannot be accepted for the reason that an area of 2000 sq.yards (purchased by way of four sale deeds) cannot be utilized for agricultural purposes. (4). No interference with the impugned orders is called for. (5). Dismissed. 28.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE