IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.07.2009 Parma Rani and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioners ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash orders dated 12.12.2007 (P1) and 9.1.2008 (P2), vide which, the Collector directed the petitioners to make payment towards deficient Stamp fee affixed by them on sale deed, vide which, they had purchased 12 bighas and 16 biswas of land. Further challenge is to order dismissing their appeal on 10.2.2009 (P3). Heard counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the petitioners purchased property, mentioned above, for an amount of Rs.17 lacs 25 thousands showing it as agricultural land. The sale deed was impounded as per provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The matter was sent to the Collector, for enquiry, to decide, as to whether deficient Stamp fee has been affixed or not. Upon notice, the petitioners put in appearance. Except filing written statement, no further evidence was led by them. Provisions of Section 47-A of the Act reads thus:- Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 “47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with – (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration as the case may be, and the property duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the reason liable to pay the duty.” It is contention of the petitioners that before determining price of the land purchased, no enquiry was conducted by the Collector. This Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. Under the Act, Rules known as Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 were framed. Rule 4 reads as under:- “Rule 4. Assessment of Duty.- (1) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, the Collector shall serve on the person or persons concerned a notice in form I, requiring him on a date and at a place to be specified therein either to attend in person or through an authorized agent to 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such person or persons may reply in his support. (2) The Collector, after taking such evidence as the person or persons may produce and after making such enquiry as he may deem proper, shall determine the value of property or consideration as the case may be, and assess the amount of deficient duty recoverable from the person concerned. (3) If the person or persons fails or fail to attend in response to the notice served under sub-rule (1), the Collector shall proceed ex parte and assess the deficient amount of duty, if any, to the best of his judgment.” Reading of the above said provision indicates that a person concerned (purchaser), is entitled to get a notice from the Collector, stating date of appearance and asking him to produce any evidence on record to rebut averments made against him in that notice. Rule further mandates that the Collector after taking note of such evidence, as may be produced by the person concerned and after making enquiry, shall determine value of the property and assess amount of deficient stamp duty, if any. It is not in dispute that vide notice, the petitioners were directed to put in appearance and produce evidence in their favour. After putting in appearance, the petitioners failed to appear on two dates and were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. Even in this writ petition, nothing has been brought on record, in the shape of khasra girdawari/ jamabandi to show that the land was ever used for agricultural purpose. It has been found, as a matter of fact and not even disputed by the petitioners that on one portion of the land, Rice Sheller is in existence. By referring to that fact, counsel states that rest of the land cannot be treated as commercial in nature. This 3 Civil Writ Petition No.8248 of 2009 Court feels that the argument raised is not justified. To run a Sheller, huge vacant area is needed to store paddy, without which, it is not possible to operate a Sheller. In view of that, entire land was rightly treated as commercial in nature. As per facts of this case, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 14.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 4