Dismissed

Hardeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012CWP/128/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging an order imposing excess stamp duty. The court held that a subsequent notification reducing duty for female buyers was not retrospective and the valuation by the Collector was upheld due to lack of evidence supporting lesser consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Collector's order was dismissed.

Hardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.128 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶4

CWP No.128 of 2012

¶5

Date of decision: 02.02.2012

Hardeep Kaur

----- Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶14

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order 23.12.2008, Annexure P.1 passed by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, “the Act”), which has been upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.5.2010, Annexure P.2 requiring the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the market value of the property sought to be transferred.

¶15

Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner purchased some land vide sale deed No.229 dated 6.5.2008 situated at Sardulgarh-Ratia road from respondent No.4 - Manish Kumar and the sale deed was got registered in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Sub Registrar, Mansa issued letter dated 6.5.2008 and referred the sale deed to respondent No.3 – the Collector on the ground that the stamp duty affixed on the same was less than the actual market price of the land in

¶16

CWP No.128 of 2012

¶17

¶18

question without inspection of the spot. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The Collector after considering the matter passed the order dated 23.12.2008, Annexure P.1. The Collector on the basis of comparable instances came to the conclusion that the rate of the similar property in dispute at the time of sale was Rs.1 lac per marla. Further, the petitioner, was asked to furnish evidence to support the consideration shown in the sale deed which the petitioner had failed. It was also noticed that the land which was being transferred was situated on the main road and would, thus, fetch rate of Rs.1 lac per marla. Accordingly, the stamp duty of Rs.1,34,750/alongwith registration fee Rs.9250/- on the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. In appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.5.2010, Annexure P.2. Hence this petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on Annexure P.3, submitted that the State of Punjab had issued a notification on 11.2.2010 whereby the stamp duty had been reduced by two percent chargeable under the Act when such instrument was executed in favour of female buyer in the State of Punjab and on that basis, the petitioner was liable to pay less stamp duty and further the valuation as adopted by the Collector was also challenged.

¶20

After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate that the consideration shown in the sale deed was the correct price and there

¶22

CWP No.128 of 2012

¶23

¶24

was consideration of any irrelevant material for arriving at the value of Rs.1 lac per marla by the Collector. The Collector had noticed that after conducting spot examination, it was found that the land mentioned in the sale deed was falling on Ratia-Sardulgarh road. There is Court Complex on the left hand side of the land and it was situated on main road not having price of less than Rs.1,00,000/- per marla. The order of the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner by holding that the land in question covered by the sale deed fell under Code 42(c) which had Collector rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per marla. Further, the notification Annexure P.3 which was issued on 11.2.2010 nowhere suggests that it was retrospective in its operation. The sale deed having been executed and presented for registration before that date would not be governed by the same.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

February 2, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge

Hardeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S S.S. Company Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurpreet Kaurq Vs Pseb and Ors.

M/S Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Arun Kumar Seemar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

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

Jethu Ram Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.