CWP No. 12641 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12641 of 2010 Date of decision July 27, 2011 Chander Kanta ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG., Punjab. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the demand for additional stamp duty by the State for a transaction which was already registered in relation to property in Nawanshahr town. The demand was placed on the basis of Punjab Stamp Amendment ordinance, 2005 introducing Section 3-C that provided for an additional duty of 3% for properties within the jurisdiction of Municipality or a Corporation or within the area of 5 K.Ms from the outer limit of Municipality or Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the ordinance of 2005 gave way to Act 11 of 2005 which restricts the applicability of Section 3-C CWP No. 12641 of 2010 2 providing for an additional levy of 3% only to properties in Municipal Corporation of Class-I Municipality. Section 3-C stands amended by Act 11 of 2005 which reads as follows:- “Instrument chargeable with additional duty- Every instrument mentioned in entry 33 of Schedule 1-A chargeable with duty under Section 3, shall, in addition to that duty, be also chargeable with such duty, as specified in Schedule 1-B, if such an instrument is executed in the area falling within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Corporation or within the area of five kilometres from the outer limit of the Municipality or Corporation, as the case may be, as may be specified by the Collector. This shall be applicable only to Municipal Corporation and Class-1 Municipalities.” 2. The contention is that Nawashahr is a Class-II Municipality and the provisions of Section 3-C are not applicable. I uphold the objection of the petitioner and quash the demand made by the respondents. 3. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2011 archana