LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1069 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Mandeep Pathak ....Appellant. Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 1069 to 1072 of 2011 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, all the three appeals are based on identical facts and questions of law. For brevity, the facts are being taken from LPA No. 1069 of 2011. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders of the authorities below directing him to deposit a higher stamp duty on the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant, was dismissed. 3. Put shortly, the facts relevant for disposal as narrated in the appeal are that the appellant purchased a land measuring 556.66 square yards for a sum of Rs.5,06,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 18.2.2005 in village Mudian Kalan, District Ludhiana. The said sale deed was handed over to the appellant without any objection. However, LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -2- reference was made by the Sub Registrar, East Ludhiana, to respondent No.2 under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act, 1989 for impounding the sale deed on the ground of payment of deficient stamp duty. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.1.2008 held that at the time of registration of the sale deed, the Collector had fixed the market rate at Rs.8000/- per square yard and thereby the value of the plot was Rs.44,53,280/-. As the said sale deed was registered on the less value, therefore, the same was deficient in stamp duty. Against the order of respondent No.2, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 24.2.2009 dismissed the said appeal against which, the appellant approached this Court by way of CWP No. 9762 of 2009. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.10.2010 dismissed the writ petition affirming the orders of the authorities below. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner had determined the market value of the property by taking the valuation at Rs.8000/- per square yard whereas the actual value thereof was not more than Rs.2000/- per square yard being agricultural land. 6. We are unable to accept the said contention. It was not disputed that the total area purchased by the appellant vide four sale deeds was about 2000 square yards and the use of the same for agricultural purposes, thus, could not be substantiated. Further, it was uncontroverted that the property was put to use for commercial purposes by the appellant. The valuation accepted by the Collector and LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -3- the Divisional Commissioner could not be shown to be perverse in any manner. The said valuation was accepted by the learned Single Judge with the following observations:- “It is conceded position that the petitioner purchased a plot abutting Ludhiana-Chandigarh Road with 167 ft. length and 30 ft. width and measuring 556.66 sq. yards vide registered sale deed No. 19462 dated 18.2.2005. The plot has been admittedly utilized by the petitioner for commercial purposes though was purportedly purchased as an agricultural land. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the plot purchased by the petitioner is of commercial nature and as such he was liable to affix the stamp duty as per the Collector's rate notified for the commercial properties of the locality. The petitioner's contention that at the time of its purchase, the land was agricultural cannot be accepted for the reason that an area of 2000 sq. yards (purchased by way of four sale deeds) cannot be utilized for agricultural purposes.” 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1070 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Mandeep Pathak ....Appellant. Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see LPA No. 1069 of 2011 (Mandeep Pathak v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1071 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Mandeep Pathak ....Appellant. Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see LPA No. 1069 of 2011 (Mandeep Pathak v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE LPA No. 1069 of 2011 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1072 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Mandeep Pathak ....Appellant. Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see LPA No. 1069 of 2011 (Mandeep Pathak v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE