In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3395 of 1996 Date of decision: July 21, 2009 Bharti Gupta .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.1996, passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order of stamp duty, whereby, the Collector had ordered to pay the deficiency in the court fee. Brief facts of the case are that vide sale deed dated 19.5.1993, Bharti Gupta petitioner purchased House No.275, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, which was registered for a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-. The house was built on 135 sq. meter and it had construction in the shape of three rooms, kitchen and courtyard. On reference being made, the Collector after summoning both the parties and taking evidence observed that the market value of this house was Rs.2,41,400/-, therefore, the petitioner would be bound to pay stamp duty on the difference amount of Rs.1,01,400/- within a period of one month. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.1995 passed by the Collector Thanesar, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, which was dismissed, hence this petition. Having scrutinized the records of the case, it transpires that the Collector, Thanesar as well as learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, have duly pondered over the allegations and evidence. It appears that order was passed after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in order to support his contentions. Learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, after Civil Revision No. 3395 of 1996 -2- *** examining all the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence passed the order dismissing the appeal of the appellant-petitioner. No illegality much less irregularity could be found to interfere with the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order was passed on the basis of the Collector's rate, therefore, the same is not sustainable. Having examined the record, it transpires that the Collector did not merely rely only upon the collector's rates, but he summoned the Sub- Registrar to prove the market value of the building, as well as the officials of P.W.D. Department to prove the value of the construction. As such, this order cannot be said to have been made on the basis of the collector's rates. Consequently, this revision petition being unmerited is dismissed. July 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge