IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 21 of 2009. Date of Decision: 25th May, 2009. Jarnail Singh Rangi ....Petitioner through Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate Versus Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & Ors..Respondents through Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the orders dated 31.3.2008 and 24.9.2008 [Annexures P1 and P3] passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby recovery of Rs.3,44,300/- has been ordered against him under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on account of undervaluation of the sale deed dated 5.8.2004. The petitioner purchased land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas situate within the revenue estate of village Chhajju Majra, Tehsil Kharar, which is now within the municipal limits of SAS Nagar, Mohali, pretending the same to be agricultural land and affixed the stamp duty accordingly. On a reference under Section 47-A, the Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide his impugned order dated 31.3.2008 held as follows:- “After perusing the file, the spot inspection was done. On the spot, it has been seen that one side of this land Model Town, Phase III is built and on the other side there is Shivalik Enclave colony and this land is surrounded by residential plots. This land and the colonies around this area have been developed 4-5 years ago. The purchaser has not paid the stamp duty at the time of purchase of the land as per collector rates. The site inspection report prepared by Sub Registrar does not appear to be correct. And at the time of preparing the report, he has committed a mistake by not taking into consideration the revenue record meant for the purpose. Even while sending this sale deed to this court under Section 47-A, these facts were not brought to the notice. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the spot inspection report submitted by the Sub Registrar because the land subject matter of the sale deed is residential in nature whereas the stamp duty has been paid treating it as agricultural land”. The aforesaid finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well. The petitioner, however, still reiterates that the land purchased by him is agricultural one. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, Tehsildar, Kharar has filed his reply/affidavit and in para no. 2 thereof, he has reiterated that on one side of the land, there is Model Town, Phase III, Kharar and on the other side there is Shivalik Enclave. During the course of hearing, it could not be disputed that the land purchased by the petitioner is surrounded by fully developed residential area of SAS Nagar. That being so, the petitioner's contention that land purchased by him is agricultural land, is totally false and can not be accepted. Dismissed. May 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE