IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5860 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 13.10.2009 Varinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Harinder Kumar Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Challenge in this petition is the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by Collector-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,46,000/- on account of stamp duty and a sum of Rs.3750/- on account of registration fee on sale of the land measuring 8 kanals which was challenged before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 09.03.2009 dismissed the appeal which is also under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the spot inspection report, made by Sub-Registrar, who conveyed vide letter vide letter No.129/RC dated 07.06.2008 that the land covered vide sale deed is agricultural and not abadi land. Having perused the impugned order, the inspection report reveals that the property in dispute is situated within Shivalik Colony wherein houses have been constructed but land in question is still vacant. However, it is disclosed that the land is situated in between the constructed houses. As such, the land covered by the sale deed is purely residential Civil Revision No.5860 of 2009 (O&M) -2- area and it is situated just 25 meters away from the main Chandigarh- Hoshiarpur Road. It appears that the land was sold by controverting the same into plots and the petitioner has shown the same agricultural which amounts to misrepresentation. The Sub-Registrar has rightly fixed the value of land @ Rs.70,000/- per marla as per market rate. Thus, after examining the case from all the market value of the plot under the sale deed cannot be said to be on the higher side. Anyway, the order has been passed by the Collector after appreciating evidence and examining the situation at the spot. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount within three months positively. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.10.2009 mamta-II