CWP No.1980 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1980 of 2009 Date of decision: March 17, 2009. Didar Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.S. Chandi, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. Keeping in view the fact that the challenge herein lies to the quasi judicial orders, there is no necessity of any counter affidavit from the respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 17.6.2008 and 1.9.2008 (Annexures P-2 and P-4) passed by the Collector, Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar respectively, whereby he has been asked to affix additional stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deed dated 25.1.2008 and his appeal against the said order of the CWP No.1980 of 2009 -: 2 :- Collector has been partly allowed by the appellate authority. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with Udho Ram to purchase land measuring 1½ marla situated in village Kahlwan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. As the vendor refused to honour the agreement, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the civil court on 17.4.2001. Pursuant thereto, the subject sale deed has been executed in the petitioner's favour on 25.1.2008. The Collector asked the petitioner to affix stamp duty on the basis of value of the land prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed and has accordingly held that there is a deficiency of stamp papers amounting to Rs.9516/-, besides Rs.1202/- towards registration charges. The petitioner preferred an appeal and during the course of hearing, he took a stand that the value of the land is @ Rs.35,000/- per marla and he is ready to affix stamp duty at that rate. The appeal has been partly accordingly allowed as per the petitioner's own stand before the appellate authority to the extent that the value of the land @ Rs.35,000/- per marla has been, prima-facie, accepted by the appellate authority who, in turn, has directed the Collector to re-verify and if the rate of the land is found to be Rs.35,000/- per marla, then additional stamp duty and registration charges are to be recovered as per that rate only. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court. It may be apposite to reproduce the petitioner's own case before the appellate authority, in the following terms:- “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the copy of order of the Collector, Jalandhar dated 17.6.08 under CWP No.1980 of 2009 -: 3 :- appeal and other papers brought on the file. The appellant is saying that the value of the land is Rs.35000/- per marla. He is ready to sell the land to the government at this rate. The Collector may get fresh report from field staff, if the price of land is around Rs.35,000/- or not; if his version is correct then he may work out stamp duty @ Rs.35,000/- per marla and get deposited the same to which appellant agrees. The appeal is disposed of with this observation.” Since the appellate authority has directed the Collector to re- verify the market value of the land as per the petitioner's own stand, no case of interference by this Court is made out. Suffice it to say that if the Collector also arrives at a conclusion that the value of the land is not more than Rs.35,000/- per marla, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the additional stamp duty and registration charges as per that rate only. Disposed of. March 17, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge