IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13309 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 20th August 2010. Deepinder Singh Dhall Petitioner through Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 23.04.2007 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Collector, Jalandhar which has been further upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order 28.01.2009 [Annexure P-4]. Vide these orders, the petitioner has been asked to affix additional stamp duty charges on the conveyance deed No. 6886 executed on 09.11.2005 at the prevalent Collector's rate. The petitioner's claim is that he purchased the plot from the Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar, i.e., SCF No. 38 situated in Urban Estate, Phase I, Jalandhar in an open auction and a conveyance deed regarding the same was registered by the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar vide Sale Deed No. 6886 dated 09.11.2005 after verifying that the petitioner has paid the due stamp duty charges on the basis of the Collector's rate prevailing at that time. However, the said conveyance deed was not released, rather the petitioner was issued a notice dated 21.05.2007 [Annexure P-2] claiming additional stamp duty charges. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is liable to affix the stamp duty charges as per the Collector's rate prevalent on the date when the conveyance deed was presented for its registration, i.e., 09.11.2005? This issue has been settled in favour of the respondents by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Haryana v Manoj Kumar, 2010[2] RCR[Civil], 296. Reliance placed upon the notification dated 02.03.2009 [Annexure P-5] by the petitioner will not come to his rescue as the said notification was issued subsequent to the execution of the instrument and is prospective in nature. Dismissed. August 20, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE