- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Collector demanding an additional stamp duty of Rs.5,77,670/- with interest. This is pursuant to an action taken under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act by the Collector holding that the property which had been sold through the document dated 3.5.2007 had deliberately been undervalued, the property and the stamp duty paid was not correct. The valuation adopted by the petitioner was Rs.16,00,000/-per acre and the stamp duty of Rs.5,77,670/- had been paid on the consideration paid under the document namely for Rs.1,04,50,000/-. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was purported to have given a report that market value of land was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre by references to the fact that the property was adjoining the road and it was more valuable. The petitioner relied on the Collector's value itself and some sale deeds in the vicinity that showed that the Collector's rate of land abutting the land was Rs.8,00,000/- and land situate away from road was Rs.2,50,000/-. The Collector while passing an order simply made reference to a report alleged to have been submitted by Sub Registrar Muktsar and the report of the Local Commissioner. If the Sub Registrar had objective materials to base his estimation and the Collector was acting on the same, then it should be possible to support the order. The Collector has taken valuation at Rs.20,00,000/- on the basis of the Local Commissioner's report.
(2.) Counsel for the State would contend that the Local Commissioner himself was appointed at the asking of the petitioner and therefore the report cannot be rejected. He would further contend that the decision of the Collector itself was subsequent to an order of remand by the Commissioner allowing the party to raise an objection about the valuation given by the Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner cannot pick up an estimation or valuation by occular observation and any valuation done otherwise than on objective materials ought to be liable for rejection. The Collector had no materials to bank on when the Collector's rate as notified in the Gazette conformed to the valuation as set out in the sale deed. The assessment of additional stamp duty as payable was clearly untenable and not supported by any reliable material.
(3.) The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Any amount if it has been paid or collected by the State is liable for refund within a period of four weeks. If the document has been informed, it is liable to be returned forthwith. Petition allowed.;