IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8520 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 30, 2010. Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner versus Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of 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) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. There being challenge to the quashi-judicial orders, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner impugns the order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Muktsar whereby he has been directed to affix additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.84,600/- besides registration fee of Rs.6000/- alongwith interest amount of Rs.51,250/- in respect of the sale deed dated 29.5.2003 whereby the petitioner had purchased land C.W.P.No .8520 of 2010 2 measuring 18 kanals 2 marlas, situated in village Husner, District Muktsar. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure P-8) dismissing his appeal against the afore-mentioned order. Both the Authorities below have held that the Collector's rate at the relevant time was Rs.5000/- per marls for the 'gair mumkin' land. It has also been concurrently held that there is a rice sheller in the land which is 'gair mumkin'. The petitioner has been asked to affix the stamp duty as per the Collector's rate. No interference with the impugned orders is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, especially in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others versus Manoj Kumar (2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 296. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector has imposed the amount of Rs.51,250/- towards interest @ 12% per annum as per the Punjab Government Notification dated 24.8.2004. Learned counsel appears to be right in contending that since the sale deed was executed on 29.5.2003, the rate of interest revised subsequently, cannot be applied. In other words, the petitioner's liability has to be determined at the rate it prevalent on the date when the subject sale deed was executed, i.e., on 29.5.2003. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned orders dated 24.3.2009 and 30.3.2010 (Annexures P-6 and P-8) are modified to the extent that while the petitioner shall pay the stamp duty as well as the registration fee as directed by the Collector, C.W.P.No .8520 of 2010 3 Muktsar, his interest liability shall be re-determined at the rate, if any, prevalent at the time when the sale deed was executed on 29.5.2003. Dasti. July 30, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE