C.W.P. No.8811 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8811 of 2010 Date of Decision.13.09.2011 Parmod Kumar s/o Ram Lal s/o Babu Ram, aged about 38 years, resident of H.No.B-20-2250, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Revenue, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The only point arising in this case is the tenability of the order passed by the Collector revising the valuation as stated in the sale deed as inadequate and calling for additional stamp duty to be payable on the ground that the property is worth Rs.30,000/- per square yard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that property has been valued on the basis of circle valuation of the Collector and as per the notification issued and available in the official website of the Registration Department of State of Punjab, the property is worth only Rs.6,000/- per square yard. 2. On the details given by the petitioner, I had called upon the respondent State to verify the details of the valuation as issued by the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana and the counsel for the State admits that the valuation is only Rs.6,000/- per square yard as stated by the petitioner. C.W.P. No.8811 of 2010 -2- 3. There is no justification under such circumstances to treat the document as undervalued to call upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The impugned order is quashed. The valuation as stated in the sale deed is taken as appropriate and no further stamp duty is payable. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The additional amount, which is alleged to have been paid by the petitioner is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which it will also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 13, 2011 Pankaj*