IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1431 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2011 Smt. Maharani Goyal & others. -----Appellants. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants for quashing letter dated 27.7.2009 written on behalf of the State Government and for execution of conveyance deed in favour of the legal heirs of the allottee of the plot by the State of Punjab. 2. Case of the appellants is that their predecessor was allotted a plot. The price of the said plot was duly paid by their predecessor but there was inter se dispute among the heirs about the right of inheritance. The petitioners applied for being entered as heirs. The said prayer was not accepted and the petitioners L.P.A. No.1431 of 2009 were informed that they may first settle their dispute in the Civil Court and only, thereafter, conveyance deed could be executed. 3. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners was that the inter se dispute among the heirs can be settled in appropriate proceedings but if conveyance deed is not executed, the heirs will lose the benefit of the notification dated 2.3.2009, allowing the stamp duty to be paid on the price fixed at the time of allotment if the document is registered upto 2.9.2009 which date is said to have been extended upto 30.9.2011. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that in absence of inter se dispute being settled, the conveyance deed could not be executed. 5. On 21.12.2009, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are willing to make the payment in terms of notification dated 28.5.2009, to avail of the concessional rate of stamp duty, which may be adjusted at the time of registration of conveyance deed after inter se dispute between the appellants and respondents No.5 to 7 regarding family settlement is settled. It has been further suggested that a conveyance deed be executed jointly in favour of the appellants and the private respondents to the extent of disputed area i.e. 450 Square Yards subject to inter se dispute being settled in appropriate proceedings. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4. 2 L.P.A. No.1431 of 2009 Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time to take instructions. List again on 9.2.2010.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. As regards inter se dispute, Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 states that 450 sq.yards area belongs to them which is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, only dispute which survives between the appellants and respondent Nos.5 to 7 is about the specification of the area which can be gone into in appropriate proceedings. The same cannot be treated as a bar to the conveyance deed being executed for the area of 450 square yards in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and for the remaining area in favour of the appellants. 8. In view of above, rejection of prayer for execution of conveyance deed could not be justified. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and prayer of the appellants for execution of conveyance deed may be dealt with in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 11, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3