CWP No.9558 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9558 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23-09-2008 Saranjit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the Collector and the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner, in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short `the Act'). The petitioner has purchased agricultural land measuring 14 kanals 12 marlas. The sale deed was registered on 30.1.2007 @ Rs.2.5 lacs per acre. The sale deed was impounded on the ground of alleged deficiency in stamp duty and proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, were initiated against the petitioner. It was found that the deficiency in stamp duty is to the extent of Rs.18,100/- and Rs.4000/- as registration fee. The authorities have found that in respect of agricultural land i.e. the land in dispute, the Collector rate is Rs.5 lacs per acre and, CWP No.9558 of 2008 (2) therefore, there is deficiency in stamp duty. As per the petitioner the land is subject to river action of river Markanda. Therefore, the same is not agricultural land and Collector's rate for agricultural land cannot be applied to such land. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in the present writ petition. It has been found by both the authorities under the Act that the paddy crop has been sown in the land conveyed and the Aks-Sizra shows that the Markanda river has receded from the Khasra numbers purchased. Thus, the land cannot be said to be subject to river action of Markanda river. The learned Collector and the Commissioner have appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and returned a finding that the land in dispute is not subject to river action, but it is an agricultural land. The findings given by the authorities under the Act, are the findings given on appreciation of evidence. It could not be said that such findings are not possible findings on the basis of evidence produced on record. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities under Act. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE September 23 , 2008 ds