CWP No.422 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.422 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2010 **** Madan Lal . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . 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. AS Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector Mansa which has been further upheld by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide his order dated and 26.08.2009 (Annexure P4). (2). The controversy pertains to the alleged deficient affixation of Stamp Duty by the petitioner at the time of registration of the Sale Deed No.2944 dated 24.02.2006 which pertains to plot No.19 situated in the New Grain Market, Sardulgarh, purchased by him in an open auction held in the year 1977. The above-stated Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed was got CWP No.422 of 2010.doc - 2 – executed by the petitioner after depositing the due instalments. (3). Earlier also vide order dated 30.06.2006, the Collector Mansa had directed the petitioner to affix additional Stamp Duty charges to the tune of Rs.1,33,300/- and that order was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner successfully challenged those orders before this Court in CWP No.11925 of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 26.03.2008 in the following terms:- “We are of the considered view that before determining market value of the shop, it was imperative upon the Collector to conduct a fact finding enquiry and thereafter only to determine the market value of the shop on the basis of some relevant material like the sale deeds/allotment letter and/ or any other deed or instrument indicating towards the escalation in prices. In the absence of even an iota of such material, market value of the shop could not have been determined on the basis of spot inspection only. Consequently and for the reasons afore stated, we set aside the impugned orders dated 30.6.2006 and 28.3.2007 passed by the Collector Mansa as well as of the appellate authority respectively. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Mansa for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Mansa on 28.4.2008.” CWP No.422 of 2010.doc - 3 – (4). Thereafter the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P2) has been passed which does reveal that the Collector is predominantly influenced by the spot inspection of the site. It is further evident that the petitioner relied upon certain Sale Deeds which have been discarded on the ground that those were executed some years back. (5). The respondents have in their reply/affidavit also, mainly relied upon the estimated market value of the shop assessed by the Collector on spot inspection. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (7). Though the spot inspection can be relevant to have a fair idea regarding the location and potentiality of a property but that by itself cannot be the sole factor to determine its ‘market value’. Section 47-A of the Act obligates the authority to refer to the evidence led by both sides and then form an opinion about the actual market value of the immoveable property. Suffice it to observe that if the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner were not of recent times, the principle of escalation in the market price could be applied so as to determine the current market value of those properties. No such exercise has been CWP No.422 of 2010.doc - 4 – undertaken by the Collector while passing the impugned order. (8). The petitioner also relies upon a notification dated 28.05.2009 which the respondents have placed on record (Annexure R1). It, however, does not appear appropriate to express view on the petitioner’s claim based upon the said notification at this stage as such a plea would be available to the petitioner before the appropriate authority. (9). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector, Mansa is hereby set aside and as a sequel thereto the appellate order dated 26.08.2009 (Annexure P4) too cannot sustain and is quashed. The Collector, Mansa is directed to re- determine the market value of the subject premises (plot), keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and thereafter determine the petitioner’s liability to affix the additional Stamp Duty charges, if any. (10). The petitioner shall be at liberty to rely upon the notification dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure R1) before the Collector, Mansa, who shall consider the same as per law. CWP No.422 of 2010.doc - 5 – (11). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (12). Ordered accordingly. (13). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.08.2010 vishal shonkar