CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14546 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14546 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 17, 2011 M/s Chubby Holding Private Limited .....Petitioner VERSUS Divisional Commissioner,Gurgaon & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, D.A.G., Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Collector requiring the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty amounting to Rs.28,23,095/-, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the same. Though number of pleas are raised, but primarily, the petitioner contends that some relevant material has completely been ignored by fixing the rate of plot at Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard. The auction of the plot No.37 was done in favour of the petitioner in the year 1999. As per the petitioner as is evident from the additional affidavit now filed, plot No.36 was auctioned in the year 2001 and registration was done at Rs.1375/- per sq. yard. Now, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14546 of 2008 -2- another plot opposite to the plot auctioned in favour of the petitioner i.e. No.26 has been auctioned in the year 2004 and the stamp duty has been fixed at the rate of Rs.1900/- per sq. yard. The petitioner, accordingly, contends that the impugned order can not be termed as fair as it has been passed ignoring the prevailing rates in the area. The petitioner appears to be justified in raising the grievance. If the plots adjacent and opposite to the plot of the petitioner, have been allowed to be registered at the stamp duty as mentioned, the Collector appears to have been a bit harsh to the petitioner by requiring him to pay stamp duty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard. In this view of the above, the case is remanded back to the Collector to reconsider the issue in the light of the evidence or any other evidence, which the petitioner may wish to produce in regard to the prevailing rate of the area. The Collector will be at liberty to take into consideration other evidence. The Collector will also be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. January 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE