IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003 Date of decision: 28th August, 2009 State of Haryana … Petitioner Versus Tek Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) House No. 293-A/ 14 situated at Chamanpura near Prem Nagar Chowk, Rohtak was purchased by Tek Singh son of Maya Ram Saini for a total consideration of Rs.2,02,000/- vide sale deed No. 7574 dated 23rd February, 2000 from one Suresh and Ramesh sons of Sube Singh. One Surinder Kumar son of Radhey Kishan made a complaint to the police that in fact the house was purchased for Rs.9.00 lakh and thus, Tek Singh had not paid the stamp duty at Rs.7.00 lakh and the State Exchequer has suffered a loss of Rs.1,08,500/-. The Collector, after holding an inquiry, came to the conclusion that the price of the residential house comes to Rs.2,53,700/-, therefore, the purchaser is bound to pay Rs.8,014/- to the Government as deficiency of the stamp fee. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed by the purchaser Tek Singh and the State of Haryana. The Commissioner upheld the order and returned the following finding: “I have heard the arguments of counsels of both the parties and gone through the record. It seems that the action under Section 47 of Indian Stamp Act against the appellant Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003 Tek Singh on this disputed sale deed has been taken on the complaint made by respondent No.2. Yet complainant appellant No.2 Shri Surender Kumar has alleged that the property envisaged in the disputed sale deed has been purchased by him from the complainant in Rs.9.00 lacs but from the perusal of the file it reveals that in support of his complaint he has not submitted any written or otherwise document. So far as the enquiry got conducted through the Police Department is concerned, the photocopy of the respondent available on the file reveals that the statement of the seller has no authenticity being there no signature of thumb impression of him. After inspecting the file it shows that the Collector himself has inspected the site property envisaged in the sale deed and the value fixed for the property is in accordance to the site. The provisions of the ruling produced by the Learned Counsel 2001-1 CCC Page 413 are different one from the facts because the action initiated by the Collector were based on complaint for which he was competent.” It was further held by the Commissioner that the appeal filed by the State of Haryana cannot be entertained as the same was barred by time. Aggrieved against the order, State of Haryana has filed present revision petition. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, appearing for the respondent Tek Singh, has taken a preliminary objection that the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is not revisable and there is no provision in the Statute for filing a revision petition. He has further stated that there is no manifest error, which is required to be corrected by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Anil Rathee, appearing for the State of Haryana, has stated that since the present revision petition was filed in year 2003, the same be treated as a writ petition or a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 Civil Revision No. 2222 of 2003 I have perused the findings recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner. Based on the evidence, they have assessed the market value of the residential house purchased by Tek Singh. In writ jurisdiction or while exercising powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation of evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 28, 2009 rps 3