L.P.A.No.1824/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.1824/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 14.3.2011 State of Punjab and others ....................Appellants v. Jatinder Kumar .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh. Present: Mr.Jaswinder Singh,Deputy Advocate General,Punjab for the appellants. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of learned single Judge setting aside the higher valuation for the purpose of stamp duty. The respondent challenged the order of Collector dated 3.11.2006 holding that the value of the transaction was higher than the ostensible value disclosed in the document. Case of the respondent- writ petitioner was that the property belonged to his mother and was given to him by way of gift deed which was got registered on L.P.A.No.1824/2010(O&M) 2 13.9.2003. However, the mother of the petitioner thereafter executed sale deed dated 9.1.2006. Objection against valuation was referred to the Collector under the provisions of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to which reply of the petitioner was that transaction being between mother and son, there was no under valuation. The Collector rejected the plea of the petitioner and held that the value of the transaction was Rs. 5,18,400/-. The plea of the petitioner that transaction being with his mother, there could be no valuation was not considered. In appeal the said order was affirmed wherein also the plea raised by the writ petitioner was not considered. Learned single Judge held that there was no justification for higher valuation in the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the valuation determined by the Collector and the Commissioner. We are unable to accept the the submission. It is not clear as to why the transaction which was earlier registered as gift deed was later registered as sale deed. If it was gift deed, there could be no consideration. The transaction is between mother and son. Mere fact that the value disclosed in the document was less than the market value could not necessarily be a ground for holding such a transaction to be under valuation having regard to the relationship between the parties. L.P.A.No.1824/2010(O&M) 3 The issue was raised by the writ petitioner before the Collector but the Collector did not look into this aspect. Thus, the learned single Judge was justified in holding that there was no basis for inferring that the transaction was under valued. No ground is made out for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge 14.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge