Civil Revision No. 3458 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3458 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.01.2009 State of Punjab and another ...Petiitioners Versus Jagdev Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioners. None for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. A controversy, in the context of under valuation of sale deed bearing No.5404 dated 25.1.1989, was disposed of by the Collector, vide impugned judgment dated 20.4.1990 by holding that there was evasion of registration fee to the extent of Rs.368/-. In recording that finding, the learned Collector drew sustenance from the market price assessed by the committee constituted by the Government under the chairmanship of S.D.O.(C). In appeal, the then learned District Judge, Faridkot, held that assessment made by the Committee aforementioned was not admissible in evidence and that it could not treated as evidence in the matter of determining the amount payable by the respondents. In holding that view, the learned District Judge relied upon the view of this court in Tara Singh Civil Revision No. 3458 of 2009 -2- **** and others Vs. Stateof Punjab and others 1987 (2) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 212 wherein it was held that the report made by the Collector is primarily an administrative act and the Land Acquisition Collector has to act purely on judicial side. Learned State counsel, in a touch of magnanimity, states that essential grievance of the State is with regard to finding by the learned Trial court that the report made by the committee aforesaid is inadmissible in evidence. He is, however, not in a position to assail the other part of the order which called upon the Collector to redetermine the amount due from the respondents. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the learned State Counsel. There is no warrant for the proposition that the assessment of the land made by the Committee is not admissible in evidence. That may require formal proof is an altogether different issue. The petition shall stands disposed of accordingly in the light of the observations noticed above. The Collector shall proceed to determine the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleas at the trial. It is made clear that the report furnished by the Committee (appointed by the Government), headed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), would be admissible in evidence subject to proof thereof and it would, apart from the other material, be taken into consideration by the Collector while proceeding with the determination on the point under reference. January 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge