Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P6) passed by the Collector, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali on 22.4.2005 and the order (Annexure P8) passed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala on 30.1.2008 in proceedings under Section 47 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act').
(2.) THE petitioner purchased the land measuring 3 kanals 13 = marlas being 80/160 share out of rectangle No. 35 killa No. 1/2 (7 -7) situated at village Chanalo, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (now Mohali) together with a boundary wall for a consideration of Rs. 6,10,000/ - on 22.4.2005. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 47 -A of the Act on 5.7.2007 finding that such instrument of sale has been registered at a lesser valuation. The petitioner took up a stand that the land purchased is a vacant land and the earner owner had constructed the boundary wall, but no construction has been raised. Thus, the sale deed was executed with stamp duty according to the instructions of the Government. By virtue of subsequent additional reply dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure P4), it has been pointed out that the land falls in the Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon and hence the rates of plots for residential areas cannot be applied to assess the value of the said plot. It was also pointed out that similar plots have been allotted at the rate of Rs. 232/ - per square yard at the time when the plot was purchased by the petitioner. The Collector found that the Collector's rate in the Industrial Focal Point was Rs. 40,000/ - per marla, whereas the document has been registered on the basis of it being agricultural land. On the basis of the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 40,000/ -, the stamp duty payable comes to Rs. 2,09,600/ - and Rs. 39000/ - as registration charges, whereas the petitioner had paid Rs. 55,000/ - as stamp duty and Rs. 6100/ - as registration fee. Thus, the petitioner was called upon to make up the deficiency in stamp duty. The said order has been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner as well.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was required to be associated in the inquiry in respect of the nature of the land sold. It is contended that the petitioner was not associated in the inquiry, which led to the conclusion that the land is not agricultural land and, therefore, the entire basis of the order passed by the Collector is incorrect. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Inderjit Singh and Anr. v. Punjab State through Collector, Bhatinda and Anr. to contend that the value of the property cannot be based upon estimated value and market price has to be fixed on the basis of evidence.;