CWP No. 20847 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20847 of 2010 Date of decision: August 19 , 2011 Ram Lubhaya ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. D. S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Collector on 5.4.2006 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act assessing the stamp duty as payable on the date of registration of the property and not as on the date when the amount had been paid by the petitioner to the Improvement Trust. After the order was passed determining `74640/- as stamp duty payable and a registration fee of `8450/- as registration charges payable, the petitioner did not challenge this order within 30 days in the manner provided under Section 48 of the CWP No. 20847 of 2010 2 Stamp Act. The petitioner was trying to take advantage of the Punjab Government Gazette notification issued on 28.5.2009 that provided for certain concessions in the manner of treatment of the valuation of the property for document that is got registered up to September 2, 2009 from the issue of notification dated 28.5.2009 or within three months from the payment of last regular payment as per Schedule of payment. This notification that amends the Punjab Stamp (dealing of undervalued instruments) Rules, 1983 will apply only to specific classes of instruments as provided in the explanation itself. A matter that has stood concluded by an assessment when there was no notification and which was not assailed within the period that the law provided for, it shall not become possible to reopen the same and apply the amended rules for the benefit of the petitioner. There is simply no justification for the petitioner to file a writ petition after four years after the order was passed. The petitioner is also guilty of laches. 2. The order is confirmed and challenge to the order fails. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19 , 2011 archana