CWP No.10250 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10250 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.09.2010 **** Mohan Lal Modi . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. RS Madan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) CWP No.10250 of 2009.doc - 2 – (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur whereby his license as a Deed Writer has been cancelled and the appeal/revision petition preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala as well as before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab against the said order have also been dismissed vide orders dated 12.06.2007 and 16.09.2008 (Annexures P2 & P1 respectively). (2). Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention that the petitioner is alleged to have calculated less Stamp Duty charges to the tune of `40,000/- in respect of Sale Deed Wasika No.3668 dated 18.08.2005. (3). The point in issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is guilty of reducing the Stamp Duty charges or not? (4). In order to find out the answer to the above issue noticed above, it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner was required to ask the vendee to affix the Stamp Duty as per Code No.51 or 56? (5). As per the enquiry report submitted by the Sub- Registrar, Barnala, the Stamp Duty on the sale deed ought to have been affixed as per Code No.51 CWP No.10250 of 2009.doc - 3 – pertaining to ‘16-acre/25-acre Schemes’ developed by the Improvement Trust, Barnala and for which the Collector’s rate w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was duly notified vide Annexure P13. On the other hand, the subject Sale Deed (Annexure P8) pertains to the land/residential plot measuring 5 marlas situated in Khasra No.2625/2/3/2/0-10, 1/2 share situated in the revenue estate of Barnala and the Stamp Duty was liable to be affixed under Code No.56 of the Collector’s rate (Annexure P13) applicable in the case of residential plots within the revenue estate of Barnala town on “Patti Road By-pass to Stadium Sanghera Chowk till the Stadium (Thikriwala Road).” (6). The petitioner admittedly got affixed the Stamp Duty as per Code No.56. Since the Collector, Barnala while notifying the Collector’s rate (Annexure P13), which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2005, has drawn distinction between the lands falling under Code No.51 and Code No.56 and admittedly the subject sale deed was not of a residential plot falling under ‘16-acre or 25-acre Scheme’ developed by the Improvement Trust, Barnala, there was no occasion for the petitioner CWP No.10250 of 2009.doc - 4 – to ask the vendee to affix the Stamp Duty as per Code No.51. On the other hand, the residential plot in question falls under Code No.56 and the petitioner got affixed the Stamp Duty charges as per the said Code only. (7). That being so, no fault can be found with the action of the petitioner much less warranting severest action like cancellation of his license as Deed Writer. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 16.09.2008; 12.06.2007; and 22.03.2006 (Annexures P1 to P3, respectively) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to restore the license of the petitioner forthwith as Deed Writer at Sangrur. (9). Ordered accordingly. (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.09.2010 vishal shonkar