- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.18515, 18516, 18517, 18519, 18523, 18526, 18530, 18536 & 18556 of 2009 as the issues involved in these cases are common in nature. Facts for brevity are being extracted from CWP No.18515 of 2009.
(2.) The petitioner is a Developer and Builder who seeks quashing of the order dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by the Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali which has been further upheld by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P7), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs.2,80,000/- along with interest in respect of the land measuring 2 bigha 8 biswa situated within the revenue estate of Village Khanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 04.01.2006. The solitary issue which that arises for consideration is as to whether the above-stated land is to be treated as 'agricultural' land and/or its potentiality as a 'residential' or 'commercial' area being in close proximity of the Union Territory Chandigarh/Tricity, is to be kept in view for the purpose of determining its market value? It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the market value of the land in question needs to be determined on the basis of its condition as on the date of sale and not keeping in view the future potential value. Reliance is placed on two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in (i) Sarvahitkarini Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,2006 1 RCR 104; (ii) Mukesh (Minor) v. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad & Ors.,2005 3 RCR 67 The petitioner also relies upon the decisions of this Court in (i) Mulakh Raj v. State of Haryana & Ors.,2001 1 RCR 581; (ii) Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.,2004 4 RCR 217; (iii) Madan Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors.,2008 3 RCR 462;& (iv) Rajiv Passi v. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak,2008 2 ILR(P&H) 88 to urge that the Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 47A is obligated to hold a fact-finding enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and then only to determine the market value. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad,1996 3 RCR 318 are also pressed into aid to contend that merely because the fact that the land is situated close to a posh colony with high income group people residing, no inference can be drawn that it was of high potential value.
(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, urges to take judicial notice of the fact that the location of the land is very close to Chandigarh and Mohali urban areas and is an integral part of the fast developing residential/commercial townships around Chandigarh. She urges that the petitioner is admittedly a Developer and Builder who has not purchased the land for carrying agricultural purposes.;