IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15417 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th March, 2011. Nishan Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Advocate Versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Monica Chhibbar, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 Collector, Muktsar vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2007 [Annexure P-10] directed the petitioner – vendee to affix additional stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the land purchased by him vide sale deed dated 18.04.2006 in village Chak Kala Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Muktsar on the ground that the purchaser himself had made a statement before the Registrar, Muktsar that he had purchased the land @ `6,95,000/- per acre. Since the afore-stated statement was disputed by the petitioner, a direction was issued to the respondents to place on record the said statement, if any. An additional affidavit has been filed to the effect that no such statement was recorded and it appears that only a verbal statement was made before the Sub Registrar. Since the alleged statement made by the purchaser is one of the vital proof taken into consideration by the Collector while passing the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner's liability to affix the additional stamp duty, if any, needs to be re-determined by the Collector. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 31.05.2007 [Annexure P-10] passed by the Collector, Muktsar is set aside. As a necessary corollary, the order dated 4.12.2008 [Annexure P-12] passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur is also set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Muktsar with a direction to re- determine as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay the additional stamp duty, after affording him an opportunity to lead evidence and in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti. March 15, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE