IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6051 of 2007 Date of Decision : December 04, 2009 Sanjeev Kansal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. T.P.S. MANN, J. The present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for challenging the order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount of Rs.23,100/- as stamp duty and registration charges in excess of the stamp duty, which he had paid as per the value of the property mentioned in the sale deed. Order dated 25.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order, has also been challenged. The petitioner had purchased plot measuring 304 sq. yards C. R. No. 6051 of 2007 -2- situated behind Nam Dev Gurudwara at Sangrur from Surinder Kaur- respondent No.4. The sale deed dated 30.4.2003 on stamp paper worth Rs.36,100/- wherein the total consideration was shown as Rs.6,01,500/- was submitted before the Sub Registrar, Sangrur, for its registration. It was mentioned in the sale deed that the covered area of the plot was 850 sq. feet and, therefore, the value at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. feet was Rs.2,97,500/-. Adding the valuation of the plot of Rs.3,04,000/- (the size of the plot being 304 sq. yards and the price @ Rs.1000/- per sq. yard) the total consideration reflected in the sale deed was Rs.6,01,500/-. The sale deed was duly registered. On 31.10.2003, the District Collector, Sangrur, issued a notice to the petitioner that the value as reflected in the sale deed was not as per the actual construction at the spot. The petitioner replied to the said notice wherein he stated that the size of the plot was 304 sq. yards whereas the covered area was 850 sq. feet. This was so stated by the Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan, copy of which was attached with the sale deed. However, after the registration of the sale deed, more area had been covered and the application made for that construction as well as Photostat copies of the bills relating to the purchase of the building material were also attached by him with his reply. He prayed that the notice issued to him be withdrawn. After going through the report of the Enquiry Officer and perusing the sale deed, learned District Collector, Sangrur, came to the C. R. No. 6051 of 2007 -3- conclusion that the covered area was 1886 sq. feet and its value assessed at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. feet was Rs.6,60,000/-. Accordingly, the market value was assessed as Rs.3,30,000/-, which was 50% of the amount of Rs.6,60,000/-. On the said amount, stamp duty amounting to Rs.19,800/- and registration fee of Rs.3300/-, i.e., total amount of Rs.23,100/- was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The order passed in that regard by the District Collector, Sangrur, was upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, when the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the sale deed was executed the covered area of the plot was 850 sq. feet. Lateron, further construction was made and the covered area became 1886 sq. feet. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the bills issued by different suppliers of building material, photostat copies of which have been attached with the present revision as Annexure P-4(Collectively). It has also been argued that while submitting his reply, he had appended photocopies of the aforementioned bills with the same and despite the said fact, neither the Collector nor the Divisional Commissioner took into consideration those bills. It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act could not have been instituted six months after the registration of the sale deed. Therefore, the revision be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside. C. R. No. 6051 of 2007 -4- After going through the report of the Enquiry Officer and perusing the photographs appended with the sale deed, learned District Collector had concluded that a sprawling building already stood constructed at the time of registration of the sale deed, i.e. on 30.4.2003. At the most, it could be said that the construction work was going on but that is no ground to hold that at the time of registration of the sale deed, the covered area was only 850 sq. feet and not 1886 sq. feet. A perusal of the order passed by learned Collector reveals that at the time of the registration of the sale deed, the complete structure has already come into existence and only the finishing works remained. The type of building material as referred to by the petitioner in the various bills (Annexure P-4), could have been purchased by him for the purposes of completing the building. Even otherwise, the building material purchased by the petitioner vide aforementioned bills was not sufficient to enable the petitioner to construct more than 1000 sq. feet at the plot in question after the registration of the sale deed. No objection was taken by the petitioner before the learned Collector that proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act could not have been instituted six months after the registration of the sale deed. Moreover, under Section 47-A(3), the Collector can call for and examine any instrument within a period of three years from the date of the registration of such an instrument, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the C. R. No. 6051 of 2007 -5- consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the changeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that learned Collector was not competent to issue notice under Section 47-A of the Act. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, staying the recovery of the additional stamp duty, is also vacated. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 04, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1