CWP-26467-2016 & -1- CWP-26496-2016 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26467-2016 Date of Decision :07.07.2026 DOGRA EDUCATION TRUST .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CWP-26496-2016 DOGRA EDUCATION TRUST .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Since a common issue is involved in both the petitions, the same are being taken up together for a common decision. For the sake of brevity the facts are being culled out from CWP-26467-2016. 2. Through the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure P-4), the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Pathankot (respondent no.3), exercising powers vested under DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -2- CWP-26496-2016 Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, directed the petitioner-trust to deposit the deficit stamp duty of Rs.9,85,400/- and registration fee of Rs.16,980/-, as well as the order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-5), wherethrough, the statutory appeal preferred against the order dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure P-4) was dismissed by respondent no.2, which cause grievance to the present petitioner-trust and propelled it file the instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-trust submits that the land involved in the sale deed in question is recorded as a banjar kadim in the revenue record, and it is nowhere comes out from any inspection reports that the petitioner-trust has intended to use the land for any residential or commercial purpose. 4. He further submits that the registering authority is not concerned with the prospective use of the property and is required to assess stamp duty on the basis of the market value of the property at the relevant time or the actual sale consideration reflected in the instrument as on the date of its execution. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government instructions dated 28.01.2011, whereby directions were issued to all Divisional Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, District Revenue Officers and Sub-Registrars that stamp duty on a sale deed shall be levied on the basis of the purchaser's self- declaration regarding the intended use of the land. The instructions DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -3- CWP-26496-2016 further provide that where land is purchased for residential or commercial purposes, stamp duty is to be levied by applying the Collector rates applicable to non-agricultural land. The said instructions apply where the land exceeds one acre in urban areas and 2.5 acres in rural areas. It is submitted that since the land in question is situated in a rural area and exceeds the prescribed limit, and as the petitioner-trust is a charitable trust engaged in imparting education, the land would necessarily be used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Collector conerned (respondent no.3) rightly assessed the deficit stamp duty by invoking Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has perused the entire case file. 7. In the instant case sale deed bearing no.699 dated 25.03.2011, was executed by one Jasvir Rai son of Om Parkash, in favour of petitioner-trust, for sale consideration of Rs.13,02,000/- in respect of land measuring 105 kanals 1 marla. In the sale deed the nature of land was mentioned as banjar kadim, and accordingly stamp duty of Rs.65,100/- and Registration Fee of Rs.30,000/-, as per the collector rate was paid. Subsequently, during the audit conducted by the Accountant General, Punjab in 2009-2011, the land was treated as commercial in nature, and an objection regarding deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs.9,85,400/- and registration fee of Rs.16,980/- was raised. On the basis DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -4- CWP-26496-2016 of the said audit objection, the matter was referred to the Collector for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. During the said proceedings, an inspection of the land in question was conducted, and as per the inspection report the land was situated approximately 2 ½ km away from the main road; the land was situated in jungle like area; there was no abadi; no boundary wall erected around the land. It was also recorded in the said report that no commercial activity was going on the said land. Further, it was categorically mentioned therein that the stamp duty and registration fee received regarding the land shown in the sale deed is correct as per the collector rate. It was further recorded that although the land had been purchased by the petitioner-trust, however, no commercial activity had been undertaken thereon, till date. In addition, the Collector also conducted a spot inspection on 16.01.2015 along with the Halqa Patwari and found that there was neither any residential habitation nor any boundary wall around the land and that no commercial activity was being carried out thereon. 8. Despite the aforesaid findings, the Collector concerned, while placing reliance upon the report of the Accountant General, Punjab, and proceeding on the assumption that the petitioner-trust, being a charitable trust engaged in imparting education, would not use the land for agricultural purposes in future, concluded that the property ought to be treated as commercial land. Consequently, he determined the same DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -5- CWP-26496-2016 deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee as reflected in the audit report. 9. On a thorough examination of the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Collector, this Court finds that the said order is founded more upon assumptions, than on cogent evidence. Both, the initial audit report and the inspection report of the Collector (respondent no.3), reveal totally different picture, entirely inconsistent with the conclusion ultimately recorded by him in his order (supra). The future or anticipated use of land cannot constitute the basis for evaluating the stamp duty payable on an instrument. The Collector concerned, is under an obligation to determine the value of the property, character, nature of the land as it exists on the date of execution of the instrument, and not on the basis of the future use of the land, for the purpose of levying the stamp duty and registration fee. 10. The aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of U.P. and others vs. Ambrish Tandon and another”, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 865, wherein it was held that merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder: DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -6- CWP-26496-2016 “8. We have already held that it is the grievance of the respondents that the orders were passed by the Additional Collector on a public holiday. Regarding the merits though the Collector, Lucknow made a surprise site inspection, there is no record to show that all the details such as measurement, extent, boundaries were noted in the presence of the respondents who purchased the property. It is also explained that the plot in question is not a corner plot as stated in the impugned order as boundaries of the plot mentioned in the freehold deed executed by Nazool Officer and in the sale deed dated 16.04.2003 only on one side there is a road. It is also demonstrated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in question was used for residential purpose and it is asserted that the stamp duty was paid based on the position and user of the building on the date of the purchase. The impugned order of the High Court shows that it was not seriously disputed about the nature and user of the building, namely, residential purpose on the date of the purchase. Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. Though the matter could have been considered by the Appellate Authority in view of our reasoning that there was no serious objection and in fact the said alternative remedy was not agitated seriously and in view of the factual details based on which the High Court has quashed the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional District Collector, we are not inclined to interfere at this juncture.” 11. The aforesaid principle has, subsequently, been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ARC Bio Fuel Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others”, 2023(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 245, wherein it was held that DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -7- CWP-26496-2016 the nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is that date that would be relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty and not any date subsequent thereto. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:- “5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the case law cited. 6. Admittedly, on the date when the land in question was purchased by the petitioner, it was an agricultural land and the stamp duty was paid as per the Collector rate prevalent at that point of time. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained CLU for setting up a bio gas industry from the Town & Country Planning Department, which was duly granted to the petitioner. Respondent No.2, while remanding the matter, observed that “issue in this case is as to whether the land in dispute is agricultural in nature or commercial in nature.”. whereas, the question that ought to have been decided should have been, as to what nature of the land was when the same was purchased? In fact, the nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is that date that would be relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty and not any date subsequent thereto. The Supreme Court in Ambrish Tandon's case (supra), while deciding the similar issue held as under:- “...The impugned order of the High Court shows that it was not seriously disputed about the nature and user of the building, namely, residential purpose on the date of the purchase. Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26467-2016 & -8- CWP-26496-2016 the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty...” 12. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 24.03.2015, passed by the Collector concerned (respondent no.3), does not pass the test of legality. In the revenue records, the nature of land has been recorded as banjar kadim and gair-mumkin Phedh, and till date the same has not been put to any commercial or residential use, which belies the assumption as recorded by the Collector concerned (respondent no.3) in his order (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.03.2015, is hereby set aside. Since the Appellate Authority (respondent no.2), vide order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-5), affirmed the order of the Collector without appreciating the aforesaid material aspects, the appellate order is also set aside. 13. Consequently, both the instant petitions, stand allowed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 07, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes Whether Reportable. : Yes DHARAM VIR 2026.07.16 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document