IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2687 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 31, 2011. Bhura Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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 petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 24.4.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 12.5.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby they have been directed to make up the deficiency towards stamp duty charges to the tune of Rs.90,900/- in respect of the sale deed dated 20.2.2006 registered with the Joint Sub Registrar, Dirba, District Sangrur. The father of the petitioners vide the above-stated sale deed transferred 20 kanals 4 marlas of land in their favour. The petitioners sought and were granted the benefit of Punjab Government Notification dated 21st December, 2001 which exempts the instruments from stamp duty charges in the case of transfer of agricultural/rural residential property by the owner in favour of his Class-I heirs within the meaning of Section 8 of C.W.P.No .2687 of 2011 2 the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The solitary question that arose for consideration was as to whether or not the land transferred by the father of the petitioners in their favour was rural agricultural land? Both the authorities have concurrently held that the subject land falls within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Dirba and it being not an agricultural land, is not covered under the Government Notification dated 21st December, 2001. The Appellate Authority has further concluded as follows:- “....The land in question falls within Municipal limits of Dirba and it is well settled law that the property falls in notified area does not comes under notification dated 21.12.2001. The Government Notification dated 21.12.2001 whereby the stamp duty has been exempted on the properties which are transferred in favour of class-I legal heirs, is only applicable on those properties which falls inside or outside Lal Lakir of the village and not comes under any notified area. Thus, the pleadings of the present appellants are not acceptable. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Collector (ADC) Sangrur. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal filed and the same is hereby rejected.” No case to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact or the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. March 31, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE