Allowed

Sukhwinder Kaur, Lecturer v. Thapar Polytechnic College, Patiala & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2009CWP/1476/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a Collector's order imposing 9% stamp duty where 6% was applicable to similar properties, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order, and remitted the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector for a fresh decision within three months.

Sukhwinder Kaur, Lecturer Vs Thapar Polytechnic… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P NO. 1476 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 30.01.2009

Babu Singh

...Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Present : Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Notice of motion.

¶12

Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 13.03.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Sangrur, whereby stamp duty has been levied on the sale deed @ 9% instead of 6% and recovery of Rs.22,380/- is sought to be effected from the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner's grievance appears to be that when the same property, namely, a vacant plot was purchased by his vendor, the stamp duty was affixed @ 6%. However, the petitioner has been asked to affix the stamp duty @ 9% vide impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner has sold the subject property/plot and his vendee has also been permitted to affix the stamp duty @ 6 %. There is, thus, an apparent

¶15

C.W.P NO. 1476 OF 2008

¶16

-2-

¶17

contradiction in the action of the respondent authorities which leads to an inference of discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. Unfortunately, this aspect has not been addressed by the authorities in their impugned orders.

¶18

The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the guidelines (Annexure P-5) to be followed w.e.f 14.06.2006 and it appears that 9% stamp duty is leviable only if the property has been shown against Code 'A'. According to the petitioner, the subject property/plot has not been included amongst the properties covered by Code 'A'. On this premise also, the petitioner's contention is that not more than 6% stamp duty would have been charged from him.

¶19

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-2 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Sangrur for a fresh decision, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶20

JANUARY 30, 2009 shalini

¶21

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Sukhwinder Kaur, Lecturer v. Thapar Polytechnic College, Patiala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Kaur, Lecturer v. Thapar Polytechnic College, Patiala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Gupta Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Mahesh Kumar Vs HUDA and Anr.

M/S Ganesh Construction Company Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sant Lal Vs Gopi Ram and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagmohan Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.