Civil Writ Petition No.5411 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.10.2008 Smt.Renu Takyar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.Amit Rawal and Mr.Suneet Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.DS Nalwa, Additional AG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P5) passed by the Collector on 22.5.2007 and the order (Annexure P6) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon on 6.12.2007, whereby deficient stamp duty amounting to Rs.3,75,385/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner on instrument of sale dated 31.8.2006. Petitioner purchased plot No.47, Sector 4, Industrial Model Township, Manesar, Distt.Gurgaon measuring 1000 square meters approximately from respondent No.6. Subsequently, such transfer was recognized by respondent No.5-Haryana State Industrial Development & Infrastructural Corporation (for short “HSIDC”) and letter of re-allotment was issued on 21.3.2005. Petitioner presented Civil Writ Petition No.5411 of 2008 2 the conveyance deed before the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon for registration and affixed the stamp duty of Rs.91140/- on a total consideration of Rs.15,18,750/-. Though the document was registered but subsequently the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the instrument of sale has been under valued. Learned Collector, vide order (Annexure P5) relied on the report of Stamp Accounts Inspector to hold that the instrument of sale is under valued and a deficient amount of Rs.3,75,385/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Such order has been affirmed in the appeal as well. Report of the Stamp Accounts Inspector, which was relied upon by the Collector has not been produced on the record but the counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the report of Sub Registrar, on the basis of which, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for undervaluing the instrument. Such report is to the effect that since the re-allotment letter has been issued by the HSIDC in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the circle rate is to be paid by the petitioner on the instrument of sale. The question whether the Collector's rate or the circle rate as is called some time, is to be made the basis for claiming stamp duty on the instrument of sale came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Chamkaur Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and another, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 26. It was held therein that the guidelines issued by the State Government prescribing the Collector's rate cannot be made the Civil Writ Petition No.5411 of 2008 3 basis for determining the value of the instrument of sale. Such judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Mahabir Singh etc.etc., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2994. The aforesaid cases have been recently examined by this Court in Gauri Singla vs. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P No.16323 of 2007 decided on 18.9.2008. In view of the judgments, the Collector's rate cannot be made the basis of returning the finding that the stamp duty is under valued. Thus, we are of the opinion that the orders (Annexures P5 and P6) suffer from patent illegality and material irregularity and thus cannot be sustained. Consequently, the same are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) 15.10.2008 JUDGE AS