IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4852 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 16.05.2008 Pardeep Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra whereby the petitioners have been directed to make good the deficiency regarding affixation of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 16.5.2000, failing which the same shall be recovered as land revenue, as well as against the order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, upholding the aforestated order of the Collector, Kurukshetra. The petitioners purchased agricultural land measuring 24 kanals 3 marlas for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from one Sanjay Kumar Dattak vide registered sale deed dated 16.5.2000. Soon thereafter, the Sub Registrar, Ladwa made a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Haryana for determination of market value C.R. No.4852 of 2006 -2- of the land for the purpose of registration. It appears that vide an order dated 8.10.2002, the Collector determined the price of the land at Rs.6,03,750/- and asked the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.41,093/- being deficiency in the stamp duty. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division vide his order dated 27.8.2003 and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Kurukshetra for deciding afresh. Thereafter, the Collector visited the spot and passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 after taking notice of the fact that it is a “cultivable and Chahi land and is productive. The Collector has again assessed the price of the land to Rs.6, 03,750/- thereby directing the petitioners to deposit the enhanced amount of stamp duty. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division which has, however, been dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2006. Still aggrieved, they have preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. As may be noticed from the contents of the impugned order passed by the Collector, he after visiting the spot, has assessed the price of the land solely on the basis of the Collector's rate only. In the case of Urmila Devi vs. State of Punjab and others, (C.W.P.No.653 of 2008 decided on 24.3.2008), a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was a member) relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble C.R. No.4852 of 2006 -3- Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Mohabir Singh and others, (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 609, has held that the liability to pay the additional stamp duty cannot be fastened merely on the basis of the Collector's rate as the same could only be a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. In the present case also, no other evidence or material has been collected or referred to by the Collector to assess the market value of the land. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 is set aside and as a sequel thereto, the order of the Appellate Authority also cannot sustain. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Kurukshetra who shall assess the market value of the land at the relevant time on the basis of relevant material including the Collector's rate. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. No costs. May 16, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE