CWP No. 5722 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5722 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.9.2008 Dr. Narinder Mohan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ashok Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri D.S. Narwan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 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 18.7.2006 passed by the Collector and the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner, arising out of the proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner has purchased the property measuring 17X40 feet vide registered sale deed ated 4.10.2001. The valuation of the property was reflected as Rs.4,98,000/- on which the stamp duty was affixed. However, a complaint was made by Shri Surinder Mohan Chugh, who pointed out that the instrument has been insufficiently stamped. The Collector issued a show cause notice. During the course of inquiry, the Sub Registrar gave his report to the effect that the value of the property is Rs.5 lacs. The reference was thus decided in favour of the petitioner on 16.4.2004. The said order was set aside vide order dated CWP No. 5722 of 2008 (2) 15.9.2005, by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The matter was remanded to the Collector with the directions to examine the case properly after hearing the complainant. After remand, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Fazilka, was directed to make inspection and to give his report regarding valuation of the property. In his report dated 4.7.2006, it was pointed out that according to the old photographs of building, it was three storyed building prior to the sale, though, now its condition has been improved by getting it repaired. It is a commercial site and located in the very good market area of the city. It was also found that from the investigation and inquiry from all sides, the value of shop was at least Rs.8 lacs at the time of sale. On the basis of the said report, the Collector passed the order dated 18.7.2006, which order has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the basis of valuation of the property was not disclosed to the petitioner in the show cause notice nor the same was disclosed before the order was passed by the Collector. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Collector runs counter to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 217. It is also contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to rebut the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Collector has issued show cause notice on the ground that the proper stamp duty is not affixed on the instrument. The matter was remanded with the direction to the Collector to determine the market value of the property. It was thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was called upon to submit his report. The report was submitted and, thereafter, an order has been passed by the Collector on the basis of the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). The petitioner has not disputed the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, before the Collector nor before CWP No. 5722 of 2008 (3) the Commissioner. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner that the property was undervalued and the instrument was insufficiently stamped, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality. The Collector based the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). The report considers the location, nature of construction and inquiry from all sides. Therefore, we do not find that such conclusion recorded by the Collector is patently unjustified or beyond the jurisdiction conferred on the authorities. Thus, no case for interference by this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 10-09-2008 mamta-II/ds