IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: May 9, 2008 Pala Singh …Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to order dated 28.6.2007 (P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur-respondent No. 1 and order dated 20.2.2007 (P-3), passed by the Collector, Muktsar- respondent No. 2. The petitioner purchased land vide registered sale deeds bearing Vasika Nos. 758 and 759, dated 31.5.2006 and Vasika No. 831 and 832, dated 6.6.2006, in village Biddowal, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, which were duly registered by the Sub-Registrar, Gidderbaha, Tehsil and District Kuktsar. Shri Sukh Pal Singh son of Shri Jangir Singh, resident of Panjaba, made a complaint alongwith C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 photo copy of agreement to the effect that the agreement to sell in respect of the land in question was executed at the rate of Rs. 4,86,000/- per acre, whereas the sale deed has been executed on Collector’s rate of Rs. 2,11,000/- per acre. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, a notice under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner for depositing the amount of less stamp fee and registration fee (P-1). After considering the reply of the petitioner, affording an opportunity of personal hearing and on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha, the District Collector, Muktsar-respondent No. 2, came to the conclusion that the sale deeds have been executed on less price i.e. Rs. 2,11,000/- per acre, whereas it should have been according to the rate disclosed in the agreement to sell i.e. Rs. 4,86,000/- per acre. However, taking a lenient view, respondent No. 2 has fixed the price of the land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre on the sale deeds in question, vide order dated 20.2.2007. The petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 1,68,120/-, which includes interest @ 12% per annum(P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 47-A(4) of the Act before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur-respondent No. 1, which has been rejected vide order dated 28.6.2007 upholding the order passed by the District Collector (P-4). Alongwith the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the respondents have placed on record copy of the agreement to sell dated 6.2.2006 (R-1), a bare perusal of which shows that the 2 C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 same has been entered between Asha Singh, Sukhdev Singh sons of Baj Singh son of Hardit Singh, residents of village Bidowal, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar on the one part and Pala Singh son of Jai Singh son of Bohar Singh (petitioner) on the second part. The agreed sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs. 4,86,000/- per acre. Justifying the orders dated 20.2.2007 and 28.6.2007, it has been asserted that the same have been passed after holding an enquiry by respondent No. 3 and complying with various provisions of the Act i.e. after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. We see no legal infirmity in the impugned orders dated 20.2.2007 and 28.6.2007, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively (P-3 & P- 4). It would be appropriate to extract the findings recorded by respondent No. 2 in his order dated 20.2.2007, which reads thus:- “ After hearing Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate, counsel for the purchaser and on perusal of the documents available on the file and also on perusal of the enquiry report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha it has been found that Vasika No. 758 and 759 dated 31.5.2006 and Vasika No. 831 and 832 dated 6.6.2006 are for the land measuring 101 kanals 18 marlas situated at village Bidowali and Registry on this land have been got done @ Rs. 2,11,000/- per acre. As per 3 C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha the agreement on this land was done @ Rs. 4,86,000/- per acre. Regarding this photo copy of the agreement has been attached with the file, from which it is clear that the Registry have been got executed on the less price. Therefore, as per the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha it has been proved that the agreement has been got executed at the rate of Rs. 4,86,000/- per acre. While agreeing with the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha and taking a lenient view the price of the land is fixed as Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre on these sale deeds. According to this calculation Registration fee and stamp duty may be recovered. By taking the price of the land as Rs. 4,00,000/-, the details of the less stamp and registration fees comes as under:- Vasika No. & Date Less Stamp Less fee Interest Total 758 31.5.86 30950.00 4235.00 2820.00 38005.0 0 759 31.5.86 27950.00 4235.00 2575.00 34760.0 0 831 6.6.06 43430.00 1915.00 3635.00 48980.0 0 832 6.6.06 40470.00 2465.00 3440.00 46375.0 0 On this sale deeds, the interest @ 12% per annum are recovered from the date of registration of the sale deeds in compliance of the Punjab Government 4 C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 Notification No. 30.ALEG/2004 dated 24.8.2004 (Punjab Registration Amendment Act, 2004) (Punjab Act No. 20 of 2004). Accordingly, on these four vasikas the amount recoverable is ordered as Rs. 1,68,120/-. This amount may be deposited under the head 0030 Stamp and Registration (C) Stamp Non Judicial. For the amount of less stamp duty and registration notice may be issued. Order pronounced. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.” It is, thus, evident that there is documentary proof of an agreement to sell between the petitioner and the vendor at a much higher rate than the rate for which sale deeds in question were executed. Such like evidence is not ordinarily found. The only defence of the petitioner before the Courts below as well as before us is that the aforementioned agreement to sell dated 6.2.2006 (R-1) has not been admitted. However, admission is not the only mode to prove a document which could be proved even otherwise. Therefore, we do not feel impressed with the argument raised and we are inclined to uphold the impugned orders dated 20.2.2007 and 28.6.2007, passed by the Collector and the Commissioner respectively. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 9, 2008 JUDGE 5 C.W.P. No. 15770 of 2007 Pkapoor 6