C.W.P NO. 6287 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 6287 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 27.04.2009 Girdhari Lal and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. S. S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 only. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-affidavit from the official respondents. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 04.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional District Commissioner-cum-Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali-respondent No.3, whereby they along with their co-vendees, have been C.W.P NO. 6287 OF 2009 -2- asked to affix additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs.68,800/- besides registration charges of Rs.5350/- on the sale deed dated 21.08.2006 whereby land measuring 1 Kanal 6 Marlas was purchased by the petitioners in village Karora, District Mohali. They are also aggrieved at the order dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, dismissing their appeal. One of the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that notice dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-3) was served upon petitioner No.2 after the date fixed, i.e. 14.01.2008. On this premise, it is argued that the petitioners have not been heard nor an opportunity to lead evidence to show the sale deed was got registered on the prevailing market value has been afforded to them. It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar that the petitioners' co-vendee, namely, respondents No.6 and 7 were duly served and heard before passing the impugned order. However, considering the plea taken on behalf of the petitioners that given an opportunity, they would have led evidence to show that the stamp duty was affixed as per the prevalent market value, more so when the Collector thought it proper to issue notice to the petitioners but proceeded to decide the case without effecting service on them, I am of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration. Suffice it to say that under Section 47-A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, the C.W.P NO. 6287 OF 2009 -3- Collector is obligated to determine the market value for the purposes of stamp duty charges after observing principles of natural justice which includes reasonable opportunity of being heard tot he vendees as well. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar, is set aside. As a sequel thereto, the appellate order dated 06.08.2008 also cannot sustain and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector, SAS Nagar for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Collector, SAS Nagar is directed to decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to the condition that meanwhile the petitioners shall deposit the demanded amount of Rs.74,150/- towards stamp duty and registration charges, though without prejudice to their legal rights. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioners' co- vendees do not contribute their share, still the petitioners shall be liable to deposit the entire demanded amount without prejudice to their legal rights to recover the same proportionately from their co-vendees. Suffice it to say that on re-determination if the Collector holds that the petitioners are not liable to pay the afore- stated stamp duty/registration charges, the same shall be refunded within a period of one month from the date of such C.W.P NO. 6287 OF 2009 -4- decision. However, if the liability is determined on the higher side, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to make good the deficiency thereof. APRIL 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE