Civil Revision No.147 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.147 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 10.07.2009 Rajeshwar and others ......Petitioners VERSUS Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, A.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.07.2008, passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and also the order dated 29.05.2006, passed by Collector, Ballabgarh. Sale deed with regard to 4 Kanals of land came into existence on 13.06.2005 for the consideration of Rs.13,96,000/- over which a stamp of Rs.1,11,680/- was affixed. Lateron, Stamp Auditor finding the deficiency in the stamp fee, recommended that the sale was under valued and forwarded the same to the Collector vide No.127/RC dated 29.06.2005. After giving opportunity to both the parties, the Collector as per order dated 29.05.2006 assessed the value of sale deed at Rs.32,67,000/- and the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,680/- on account of deficiency in stamp duty on the said sale deed No.1999 dated 13.06.2005 within 30 days. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by Civil Revision No.147 of 2009 2 the Commissioner on 04.07.2008. Arguments heard. The impugned order reveals that the Collector had given full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The details with regard to which are found in the order, the sub Registrar had examined the Registry Clerk Sh.Parkash Chand in order to prove the value of similarly situated plots and also proved the collector rates. The Collector further observed that after hearing both the sides and examining evidence on the record, he has reached the conclusion. The Collector also opined since the plot covered by the sale deed is shown as gair mumkin, therefore, the same cannot be treated as agricultural but it was a residential plot and is situated within abadi. Even the copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 reveals that this land is “Gair Mumkin Area”. Again Collector has not only relied upon the Collector rates but has also obtained a report from Tehsildar after conducting the local inspection of the area who also reported that the plot had a boundary wall. Consequently, it could safely be concluded that the Collector verified about the actual nature and value of the property, provided opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and then reached the conclusion that Collector rates were correct and assessed the stamp fee on the market value of plot covered by the sale deed. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 10.07.2009 mamta-II