HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18397 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 **** Vipin Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of 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. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2007 & 17.09.2008 (Annexures P1 & P2) passed by the Collector, Ludhiana directing him to affix the additional Stamp Duty and Registration Fee to the tune of Rs.81,500/- in respect of the commercial plot measuring 41.11 sq. yards situated at Kabir Colony, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, District Ludhiana. While directing the petitioner to affix the additional Stamp Duty/Registration Fee, the Collector has returned the following categoric finding of fact:- “Case was considered. The plot measuring 41 sq.yard commercial purchased through above sale CWP No.18397 of 2009.doc - 2 – deed is situated at Kalbir Colony, Village Sunet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Spot of this plot was inspected with Patwari Halqua. This plot is commercial and is a part of Developed Colony. Here all the facilities like, sewer, water, electricity, pucca roads, are available. This place can be reached directly from Pakhowal Main Road from where its distance is about 200 yards. The shops of market abutting it are already constructed and are operational. Market rate at this place is Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per yard. As such, if the rate of this place is faced at Rs.25,000/- then it is not wrong rather it is less than market rate. Parties have not given any other argument in their favour. As such, there is no requirement of any change in the order passed earlier. Therefore, a copy of this order is being sent to Sub Registrar, Ludhiana with direction that the recovery of Rs.73,350/- stamp duty and Rs.8150/- Registration fee total Rs.81,500/- as per Government instruction be effected from the purchaser at the earliest.” (2). The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala has also vide his impugned order dated 10.03.2009 (Annexure P3) maintained the order passed by the Collector. 2 CWP No.18397 of 2009.doc - 3 – (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. Relying upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 462 it is urged that the Collector ought to have held a fact-finding enquiry under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, taking into consideration the relevant material before the additional liability was fastened upon the petitioner. (4). In my considered view, no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court for the reason that the subject plot is situated in a commercial hub which is fully developed with modern facilities and after the spot inspection, the Collector has come to a conclusion that the market value of that place is not less than Rs.35000-Rs.40000 per sq.yard. He, however, has given a reasonable margin by asking the petitioner to affix the stamp duty @ 25000/- per sq.yard only. (5). It is true that Section 47A obligates the Collector to hold a fact-finding enquiry for determining the market value of the property in relation to which the instrument in doubt has been registered. Such a fact-finding enquiry essentially involves such guess work and it would be too presumptuous to expect the Collector to fix a definite market price of the property. In the case in hand, the 3 CWP No.18397 of 2009.doc - 4 – Collector himself went at the spot, saw the location as well as the commercial potentiality of the plot in question which, in my considered view, was a fair and sufficient enquiry to determine the market value. (6). Dismissed. Dasti. 15.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4