IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5633 of 2008 Date of decision: 24th October, 2009 Ram Parkash … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. AG Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the parties are in agreement that Civil Writ Petition No.5633 of 2008 titled as ‘Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab and others’ and Civil Writ Petition No. 5635 of 2008 titled as ‘Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others’, being identical on facts and law, can be decided by way of common judgment. Accepting their request, I proceed to decide these two writ petitions. For facility of reference, facts are gathered from Civil Writ Petition No.5633 of 2008 titled as ‘Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab and others’. Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector and order (Annexure P-4), whereby order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. Ram Parkash, petitioner to CWP No.5633 of 2008 had purchased 8 kanal 1 marla 06 sarsai land vide a sale deed registered on 11th June, 2004. In the sale deed, sale consideration was reflected as Rs.22,50,000/-. Subsequently, an audit party raised an objection that there was a deficiency in the payment of stamp fee as the sale consideration Civil Writ Petition No.5633 of 2008 was undervalued in the sale deed. The nature of the property was held to be commercial, therefore, the value of the property assessed was Rs.2,42,50,000/-. A reference was made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector. A notice was issued to the petitioner and in response thereto, petitioner appeared before the Collector. It was pleaded before the Collector that godowns have been constructed in the agricultural land and the same were used for the purposes of storing grain for agricultural purposes and the entire activity carried out in these godowns is subservient to the agricultural purposes. The Collector concluded that in the Fard/Jamaband, the property has been recorded as godowns and they have been rented out to Punjab Warehousing Corporation, therefore, as per the Collector, schedule rates fixed for commercial property are attracted. Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, petitioner filed an appeal. The grounds of appeal have not been annexed with the present petition. However, an argument was raised before the Appellate Authority that the property in dispute is connected with 2 karm kachha passage since time of consolidation and the godowns constructed over the property are very old one. It was further submitted that actually, the land is situated in village Keherwali within the municipal limits of Dasuya. The rates specified for the land situated in village Keherwali is Rs.30.00 lakh per acre, whereas the rate applied is for the commercial land on the Hoshiarpur road. The Commissioner concluded as under: “6. … … … The Audit party of the Accountant General’s office pointed out deficiency in stamp duty in the sale deeds in question as the locality in which the property is situated is commercial one. As per revenue record, the property involved in the sale deeds situates within the municipal limits of Dasuya. I have the personal knowledge of the property being highly valuable and commercial as I have 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5633 of 2008 worked as S.D.M. Dasuya in 1994-95. The Audit party has rightly pointed out the deficiency. The Sub Registrar’s report further fortifies the Audit report. It is a simple case of evasion of stamp duty which needs to be recovered.” The essential dispute which was determined by the two authorities below, is whether the land is agricultural or commercial in nature. Mr. Puneet Jindal, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the findings of the two authorities below, even though concurrent, are liable to be set aside, for the following reasons: (a) That the godowns cannot be construed as commercial premises as per the definition given in Punjab Stamp (dealing of undervalued Instruments) (First Amendment) Rules, 2002. According to Mr.Jindal, commercial premises means any premises wherein any business, trade or profession is carried for profit. (b) That the road, on which the other commercial properties are situated, petitioner has no assess and for ingress and egress to the godowns he has only kacha passage, which is on the back side of the godowns and one has to go through the fields. (c) Counsel has relied upon Annexure P-2, a communication from Sub-Registrar to Auditor General, Punjab, wherein to dispel the objections, the Government Department had taken a stand that the property was not commercial in nature. Counsel submits that as per the assertion of the officials of respondent, this property was not commercial in nature. To controvert these submissions, Mr.M.S. Sindhu, Additional AG Punjab, submits that the property has been rented out to Punjab Warehousing Corporation on an exorbitant rent and rental value in itself is sufficient to infer that the property is commercial in nature. 3 Civil Writ Petition No.5633 of 2008 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. The definition of commercial premises, as referred to by the petitioner, is not attracted in the present case. There is a difference between the land having agricultural or commercial value and the commercial premises. The authorities had not determined the godowns to be commercial premises, but have considered the land sold to be commercial in nature. Even otherwise also, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, to whom these godowns have been let out, is carrying on trade for profit. I have perused the site plan (Annexure R-5) relied by the respondents as also the site plan (Annexure P-11) relied by the petitioner. The land abuts the road, on which Government Senior Secondary School and Khalsa College for Women are situated. The land, where the godowns are constructed, also adjoins Anaj Mandi and is opposite to the proposed Civil Hospital. A little thereafter, there is office of the market committee and BSNL exchange. The authorities below have formulated a wholesome view. They have taken the entire gamut into consideration. Therefore, they were well justified to conclude that the land has a commercial value. Hence, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings given by the two authorities below, as the same cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, there is no merit in the present two writ petitions and the same are dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 24, 2009 rps 4