IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1569 of 2009. Date of Decision: 21st April, 2009. Mewa Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the orders dated 3.1.2007 and 11.11.2008 [Annexures P-4 and P-5] whereby he has been asked to make good the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.3,78,360/- and the appeal filed by him has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit which is taken on record. It is revealed that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell on 4.5.2005 with the vendor to buy land measuring 107 kanals 09 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs.87,23,600/-. However, the sale deed No. 857 has been executed by suggesting the sale consideration of Rs. 23,82,000/- only. It goes without saying that under Section 47-A[2] of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector is obligated to determine the market value of the property for the purpose of affixation of the stamp duty, in relation to which the instrument is being registered. In the instant case, the Collector has relied upon the petitioner's own Agreement to Sell which he entered with the vendor. The execution of the said Agreement is not under dispute. Not only this, the Collector has examined Khushpal Sachdeva – the Deed Writer, who scribed the said Agreement to Sell. The petitioner's plea that before execution of the sale deed, the 'agreement to sell' in question had been orally rescinded or that the vendor later on agreed to sell the subject property at a lesser rate, appears to be a total after-thought inasmuch as a written agreement could possibly be rescinded by formally executing a Cancellation Deed and not orally. In these circumstances, the determination of the market value of the subject land by the Collector on the basis of the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the petitioner can not be termed as irrational or perverse. No interference in the impugned orders is, thus, called for. Dismissed. April 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE