C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2009 2. C.R. No.4720 of 2004 (O&M) Jagmal Singh Thakran and another .....Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The orders in challenge are two consecutive orders passed by the Collector, Gurgaon and in appeal, by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. The order of the Collector purported to have been passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant rules framed thereunder. By the impugned orders, the stamp duty paid on the document of sale, which was produced for registration on 06.07.2001, was found to be deficient in value and the Collector had ordered an additional stamp duty of Rs.1,45,500/- to be paid, which was affirmed in appeal. 2. The impugned orders make reference to the justification for the finding that the property had been undervalued by reference to the C.R. No.4719 of 2004 (O&M) -2- Rates Committee that had fixed the value of the property in South City as Rs.6,000/- per square yard and by such a reckoning of valuation, the payable value of the land purchased came to Rs.30,13,930/- against the stated consideration of Rs.18,50,000/-. 3. The adjudication under Section 47-A under the Indian Stamp Act shall be only with reference to the market value and the value fixed by Rates Committee is invariably provisional and merely a guideline. If ever, there is a dispute about the valuation as an instrument valuable for duty, it shall be the duty of the Collector to examine the market value of the property and not adopt the guideline value itself as governing a conclusive proof of the valuation of the property. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had an occasion to consider the issue in Mulakh Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others 2001 (1) PLJ 364 that an order directing deficiency of alleged undervaluation of an instrument could not be sustained if the valuation as found by the Rates Committee alone as the basis for determination of market value. The impugned orders of the Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner are set aside and the matter remitted to the Collector and the enquiry shall be undertaken by the Collector giving an opportunity to the vendee to adduce evidence regarding the market value of the property and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. The civil revision, under the circumstances, is allowed but there shall be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 10, 2009 Pankaj*