IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10081 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.07.2009 Maple Builders and Developers Private Limited Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 15.11.2007 (P6), an amount of Rs.89,000/- was claimed towards payment of deficient stamp duty for executing sale deed No.156 dated 13.4.2006. Against that order, appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 24.9.2008 (P8). Hence, this writ petition to lay challenge to those orders. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in demanding additional amount from the petitioner, the Collector has not complied with the provisions of Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899. No enquiry was conducted, order was passed at the back of the petitioner and amount was claimed without any justification. Counsel further argued that no opportunity to the petitioner was given, to rebut that value of the land purchased is less than the one assessed by the Collector. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that no case is made out for interference. Civil Writ Petition No.10081 of 2009 Record reveals that the petitioner purchased 12 kanals of land vide sale deed dated 13.4.2006, which was executed for an amount of Rs.24,16,500/-. A complaint was received by the Collector that, in fact the land was purchased @ Rs.26 lacs per acre, however, the sale deed was executed for a lesser amount. With that complaint, copy of the agreement to purchase, executed by the petitioner with owner of the property, in dispute, was also annexed. Despite notice, the petitioner failed to appear, however, seller of the land came present. Even then the Collector took all precautions to verify value of the property, in dispute. On enquiry conducted, it was found that land is situated on the main road and has commercial value. Taking note of the value of land mentioned in the agreement to sell and situation of the property, in dispute, additional amount of stamp duty was demanded. The petitioner went in appeal. In its grounds of appeal, not even a word was stated that agreement was not executed and the copy produced was forged. Attempt was made to lay challenge to the order of the Collector only on technical grounds. The Commissioner dismissed appeal filed by the petitioner by observing that once higher value of the land is reflected in the agreement to sell itself, the Collector was justified in demanding additional amount towards deficient stamp duty earlier paid. Before this Court also, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that agreement to purchase the property was not executed. In view of fats mentioned above, this Court feels that the orders passed by the authorities below are perfectly justified. Dismissed. 10.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 2