IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8208 of 2009 Date of decision: May 27, 2009. Food Corporation of India ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the respondents. The petitioner – Food Corporation of India prays for quashing of the orders dated 30.7.2007 and 1.9.2008 (Annexures P-3 and P-5) whereby the Collector, Tarn Taran has directed it to affix additional stamp duty on the conveyance deed dated 29.6.2005 and the petitioner's appeal against the said order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The solitary issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is liable to affix stamp duty on the conveyance deed keeping in view the sale consideration mentioned in the allotment letter dated 15.1.1973 or on the market value of the property as on the date when the subject instrument was presented for its registration? Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that earlier a Division bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.9.2008 passed in CWP No.19323 of 2007 (Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab & Ors.) has held that the petitioner is liable to affix stamp duty on the market value of the property as on the date of registration of the instrument. The petitioner – Corporation, however, has preferred SLP (Civil) No.7333 of 2009 against the said judgment and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.4.2009 has stayed the recovery proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation points out that meanwhile, the State of Punjab, vide notification dated 2.3.2009, has amended the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of the undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983 and has added the following explanation to Rule 3-A:- “Explanation – The consideration amount fixed at the time of immovable property by any Government/Semi Government Organization shall be deemed to be the Collector's rate and the stamp duty shall be charged for registration of document upon the consideration amount fixed by the Government/Semi Government Organization, provided that document is got registered by the original allottee within three months from issue of this notification or within three months from the payment of last regular installment as per schedule of payment of such allotment.” It is urged that in view of the amendment in the Rules even before the Collector's order can be said to have attained finality, the petitioner's claim deserves to be reconsidered by the Collector in the light of the amended Rule. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the question as to whether or not the petitioner can take advantage of the amendment carried out in the Rules on 2.3.2009, can be effectively examined by the Collector himself. The writ petition is accordingly allowed for the aforesaid limited purpose and the impugned orders dated 30.7.2007 and 1.9.2008 (Annexures P-3 and P-5) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Tarn Taran to reconsider the petitioner's claim regarding affixation of stamp duty on the allotment price mentioned in the allotment letter dated 15.1.1973 in the light of the notification dated 2.3.2009. In case the Collector holds that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of aforesaid notification, it is obvious that no recovery of additional stamp duty can be effected from the petitioner. If the Collector holds otherwise, he may reiterate the reasons given vide order dated 30.7.2007. The needful shall be done before expiry of the three months period provided in the notification dated 2.3.2009. Dasti. May 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge