C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 and CWP No. 14354 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 and CWP No. 14354 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 Mahesh Chand ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the hearing of the writ petition is preponed from 29.11.2010 to today. 2. On 11.10.2010, following order was passed:- “1. This petition seeks a direction to release sale deed dated 5.11.2004 and refund a sum of Rs.1,53,050/- charged illegally from the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was allotted a plot on 2.7.1964 by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar but sale deed was executed only on 4.11.2004. The same was impounded by the Tehsildar, exercising the powers of Sub Registrar under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 and CWP No. 14354 of 2010 -2- (for short, “the Act”), on the ground that same was under-valued. The petitioner was forced to deposit the amount under protest, even though plea of the petitioner was that there could be no under-valuation in a transaction by a Government body. Inspite of deposit, neither the sale deed was delivered to the petitioner nor claim of the petitioner against alleged under-valuation was decided. Only a photocopy of the registered sale deed was given to the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is clear from the provisions of Section 47A of the Act that even if there was under-valuation, the matter could be referred to the Collector for determination of market value and there is no provision for impounding the sale deed or recovering higher stamp duty by the Sub Registrar without adjudication by the Collector. Action of respondent No.4 is thus, illegal and abuse of power. 5. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.4 to refund the amount of Rs.1,53,050/- illegally collected from the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12 per annum and costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-. In view of patently illegal action of respondent No.4, the amount of costs will be recoverable from respondent No.4 personally. Respondent No.4 is also directed to return the original sale deed to the petitioner. C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 and CWP No. 14354 of 2010 -3- 6. In view of patent illegal action of respondent No.4, we may have to consider whether any further action is required. Let respondent No.4 remain present in person on the next date. 7. List again on 29.11.2010.” 3. C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 has been filed for recalling the above order on the ground that the sale deed was inadequately stamped and the Collector was competent to determine the correct stamp duty under Section 47A of the Act. The sale deed was duly returned which can be inferred from the fact that no representation was received from the petitioner and the order of mutation mentions that the sale deed was produced before the concerned authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inference sought to be drawn was not called for. What was produced was only photocopy of sale deed. Original was never returned to the petitioner. There was no acknowledgment to that effect. Higher value was never determined and amount was illegally recovered. There was no case of under-evaluation when sale was by a public authority. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to recall order dated 11.10.2010. It is not disputed that no higher value has been determined by the Collector and there is no record showing acknowledgment by the petitioner of having received the sale deed. The impugned action of recovering the amount even before its determination was, thus, patently illegal and without any legal basis. Accordingly, the application for recalling of order dated 11.10.2010 is dismissed. C.M. No. 16591 of 2010 and CWP No. 14354 of 2010 -4- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no further relief is sought in the writ petition and order dated 11.10.2010 may be made absolute. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 11.10.2010. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 25, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE