IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3779 of 2009 Date of decision: March 09, 2009. Kartar Singh ...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 G.L. Bajaj Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 only. Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts on behalf of the said respondents. As no relief has been sought against respondent No.5, there is no necessity to issue any notice of motion to the said respondent. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the served respondents either. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.8.2006 and 24.10.2007 (Annexures P-3 & P-4) passed by the Collector, Bhatinda and Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot respectively whereby he has been asked to pay additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.43470/- in addition to a sum of Rs.4380/- towards registration fee, along with interest @ 12% and the said order has been further upheld in appeal. The petitioner has been asked to affix the above mentioned additional stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the sale deed dated 3.2.2006 pertaining to a residential plot which was allotted by the Improvement Trust, Bhatinda in the year 1981 for a sum of Rs.17,000/-. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has been asked to affix the additional stamp duty and registration charges on the solitary ground that stamp duty ought to have been affixed and registration charges paid as per the Collector's rates prevailing in the year 2006. By now, it is well settled, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Mohabir Singh and others, (1996)1 Supreme Court Cases 609, that the Collector's rate is only a piece of material to be taken into account by the Collector while exercising his powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, which obligates him to determine the market value of the property in respect of which the instrument is being registered. In other words, market value of the subject property has to be determined by the Collector after taking into consideration the relevant material like, sale instances, location of the land, its potentiality, rental value, etc. For the reasons afore-stated, the Collector's order cannot sustain. As a sequel thereto, the appellate order is also liable to go and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Collector to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made here-in- above, as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. March 9, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge