CWP No.17791 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17791 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.08.2011 Shamsher Singh son of Dalel Singh son of Arjan Singh, resident of Village Satari, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar and others ... Petitioners Versus The Commissioner Faridkot Division, Faridkot and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the Collector passed under Section 47-A and the appeal filed thereon by the Commissioner affirming the said decision calling upon the petitioners to pay an additional stamp duty of `4,41,325/- as not tenable. The petitioners had a sale deed registered in their favour on 16.07.2007. The Collector's valuation had been set out and the documents were registered on the basis of such valuation. It appears that three months thereafter, the Registering Officer carried out a personal CWP No.17791 of 2009 (O&M) [2] inspection and informed the Collector that the property would be worth at least `3 to 4 lacs per acre and that the valuation as stated in the document was not appropriate. The Collector, however, passed the order enhancing the stamp duty payable relying on an agreement of sale alleged to have been entered by one Gianjit Singh in favour of the petitioners. The agreement was in respect of 8 kanals of land but it did not set out any khasra number or khewat number. The Collector, however, drew support from an affidavit of Gianjit Singh that had been secured from him later on 06.07.2007 that it was in respect of a fractional share out of a total extent of 485 kanals 9 marlas equivalent to 8 kanals in Khewat No.6/35-40 in Khasra No.139/7/2(2-6) among several other Khasra numbers mentioned therein. The Collector found the valuation as stated in the alleged agreement at `22,00,000/- per acre as evidence of valuation and applied the same as governing the situation. 2. The petitioners challenge the reliance on these two documents namely the agreement of Gianjit Singh with the petitioners and the affidavit of Gianjit Singh on the grounds: that they were not in relation to the very same property and that the agreement itself was cancelled and there could not be, therefore, any reliance for the same. 3. The point for consideration is whether the valuation as stated in the document that was registered was not appropriate and that it was deliberately undervalued to evade stamp duty so as to justify a reassessment. The reference to the Collector appears to have been made only on a personal inspection undertaken by the Registering Officer when the Registering Officer was led to be believe that the property would be worth `3.50 to 4.00 lacs per acre. Market valuation that would be determined under Section 47- CWP No.17791 of 2009 (O&M) [3] A ought to depend on objective materials and a personal inspection must be only for assessing the character of land. There was no objective material relied on by the Registering Officer to observe that it would be worth to `3 to 4 lacs. Again, the Collector had definitely the power to refer to any other document that would show higher value. He was relying on an agreement, which yet another person holding a specified fractional share was entering into with the petitioner. It would have been possible to place wholesale reliance on this document if it had fructified into a sale and vendor had also received on the basis of the instrument. A market price is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay and what a willing seller accepts as the value receivable by him. It is in the meeting of the minds of the two that determines price. There could be peculiar situations which could either spike the price such as a relative importance of the property to a particular buyer or strategic location which has a special bearing to such a buyer. On the contrary, there may be depressing trends in the market or where the property is subject to litigation or when there exists some encumbrance dormant on such property. When the issue of market price is to be determined under Section 47-A, I will exclude these extreme factors out of reckoning and take only the valuation as the property can fetch under normal conditions. In this case, if the petitioner had been shown to have purchased the property from Gianjit Singh in the same khasra number, it would lend credibility to the reasoning of the Collector that the property was more valuable. An aborted attempt for sale can hardly be a justification for determining the market value. The determination of the market price on an affidavit of yet another person, who had offered to sell his property but which did not go through cannot be the CWP No.17791 of 2009 (O&M) [4] basis for such determination. I, therefore, uphold the objection of the petitioner and set aside the order of the Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner. 4. The counsel for the petitioners states that he would be willing to pay even the stamp duty as suggested by the Registering Officer, post registration at `3.50 lacs per acre. The petitioners themselves have filed sale deeds said to be in the vicinity. One document dated 24.07.2001 (Annexure P- 8) for `3.00 lacs per acre and yet another property sold on 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-9) for `4.00 lacs per acre. The Collector's rate is `2.00 lacs per acre. To make an approximation through averaging of prices brought through the three document, the appropriate assessment, in my view, would be `3.50 lacs per acre and the petitioners shall become liable for payment at the above rate of `3.50 lacs per acre. A demand shall be made afresh by the Collector on such a calculation and the petitioner shall pay the same. The impugned order is set aside but it shall be subject to a reassessment in the manner referred to above. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ( K. KANNAN ) AUGUST 23, 2011 JUDGE Rajan