CWP-24101 CWP-26109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Santosh Devi State of Haryana Amita Rani State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. that since the authorities have founded their decision in CWP 2022, on the proceedings arising out of the case of Santosh (petitioner in CWP decided vide a petitions are taken up together. However, the facts a from CWP 2. 28.10.2020 (Annexure P by respondent No.3, passed by re 24101-2022 (O&M) -1- 26109-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Devi Versus Haryana and others Amita Rani Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that since the authorities have founded their decision in CWP on the proceedings arising out of the case of Santosh (petitioner in CWP-24101-2022), both these petitions are amenable to decided vide a common decision. In this view of the matter, both the petitions are taken up together. However, the facts a from CWP-24101-2022. The petitioner has questioned the validity of notice dated 28.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) and order 04.02.2022 (Annexure P by respondent No.3, as well as order dated passed by respondent No.2, wherethrough, recovery has been ordered IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24101-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondents CWP-26109-2022 (O&M) ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Sidhant Vermani, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. d counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that since the authorities have founded their decision in CWP-26109- on the proceedings arising out of the case of Santosh Devi 2022), both these petitions are amenable to be common decision. In this view of the matter, both the petitions are taken up together. However, the facts are being culled out The petitioner has questioned the validity of notice dated 3) and order 04.02.2022 (Annexure P-5), passed as well as order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure P-8), spondent No.2, wherethrough, recovery has been ordered .2026 s ….Respondents d counsel for the petitioner(s) submits - Devi be common decision. In this view of the matter, both the re being culled out The petitioner has questioned the validity of notice dated 5), passed 8), spondent No.2, wherethrough, recovery has been ordered AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24101 CWP-26109 against her on account of deficien 3. the assessment was predicated concerned question, which thereby requiring the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty. He further submits that the events/transactions registration of the sale deed, cannot be sale consideration. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality. 4. version of the p objection to the effect that after 22 days of the registration of the sale deed in question, a further sold, vide sale deed dated 21.11.2019 by Accordingly, the Audit party rightly concluded that nature of the land h been changed from agricultural no error in the impugned orders, which deserve to be upheld. 5. and has also perused the record. 6. consideration of of Rs.1,19,000/ executed before the original sale deed. However, thereafter, the Stamp Auditor raised an 24101-2022 (O&M) -2- 26109-2022 (O&M) against her on account of deficiency in stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, surprisingly, the assessment was predicated only upon assumption concerned were possessed with no evidence question, which is agricultural in nature, thereby requiring the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty. He further submits that the events/transactions registration of the sale deed, cannot be factored in, consideration. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from patent Learned State counsel, while vehemently contrasting the version of the petitioner, submits that, in fact, the Audit party took the objection to the effect that after 22 days of the registration of the sale deed in question, a piece of 100 square yards out of the total land, was further sold, vide sale deed dated 21.11.2019 by Accordingly, the Audit party rightly concluded that nature of the land h been changed from agricultural to that of residential. In this way, there is no error in the impugned orders, which deserve to be upheld. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties, and has also perused the record. In nutshell, the petitioner consideration of Rs.23,77,000/-, and accordingly affixed the of Rs.1,19,000/-. Further, sale deed No.2557 dated executed before the Sub Registrar concerned, and original sale deed. However, thereafter, the Stamp Auditor raised an stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, surprisingly, upon assumptions, as the authorities were possessed with no evidence to support that the land in agricultural in nature, falls within the residential area, thereby requiring the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty. He further submits that the events/transactions, which took place post factored in, for evaluation of the consideration. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from patent Learned State counsel, while vehemently contrasting the etitioner, submits that, in fact, the Audit party took the objection to the effect that after 22 days of the registration of the sale of 100 square yards out of the total land, was further sold, vide sale deed dated 21.11.2019 by way of plotting. Accordingly, the Audit party rightly concluded that nature of the land has to that of residential. In this way, there is no error in the impugned orders, which deserve to be upheld. learned counsel for the rival parties, In nutshell, the petitioner purchased land for a sale and accordingly affixed the stamp duty sale deed No.2557 dated 31.10.2019 was Sub Registrar concerned, and he did not impound the original sale deed. However, thereafter, the Stamp Auditor raised an Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, surprisingly, , as the authorities that the land in residential area, thereby requiring the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty. He post the consideration. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from patent Learned State counsel, while vehemently contrasting the etitioner, submits that, in fact, the Audit party took the objection to the effect that after 22 days of the registration of the sale of 100 square yards out of the total land, was way of plotting. as to that of residential. In this way, there is learned counsel for the rival parties, purchased land for a sale stamp duty 31.10.2019 was did not impound the original sale deed. However, thereafter, the Stamp Auditor raised an AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24101 CWP-26109 objection that out of total purchased land vide the abovesaid sale deed, a area measuring 100 squar 21.11.2019 by doing plotting. In this factual backdrop, he came to the conclusion that the land is residential rather than agricultural. Therefore, as per circle rate, the petitioner is required to pay the sta Accordingly, the Sub concerned, who, in turn, initiated proceedings under Section 47 Indian Stamp Act 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’). proceedings, and as per the report submitted by him, question. On the basis of the said report, Collector concerned concluded that the land in ques agricultural, but residential in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner been directed to make the deficiency of stamp duty good to the tune of Rs.4,67,850/ 7. did not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the events, happened post registration of the sale deed. The actual consideration is required to be evaluated Further, there is no evidence that the land controlled area, and the authorities concerned had in question Haryana Unregulated Development Act, 1963 petitioner has sold 100 square yards of area out of the land in question, 24101-2022 (O&M) -3- 26109-2022 (O&M) objection that out of total purchased land vide the abovesaid sale deed, a area measuring 100 square yards was sold vide sale deed No.2807 dated 21.11.2019 by doing plotting. In this factual backdrop, he came to the conclusion that the land is residential rather than agricultural. Therefore, as per circle rate, the petitioner is required to pay the sta Accordingly, the Sub-Registrar made a reference to the Collector concerned, who, in turn, initiated proceedings under Section 47 Indian Stamp Act 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’). proceedings, a spot inspection was also undertaken by Circle Patwari, and as per the report submitted by him, plotting was done on the land in question. On the basis of the said report, Collector concerned concluded that the land in ques agricultural, but residential in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner been directed to make the deficiency of stamp duty good to the tune of Rs.4,67,850/- along with registration fee of Rs.37,500/ To begin with, it needs to be highlighted did not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the events, happened post registration of the sale deed. The actual consideration is required to be evaluated on the date of registration of the sale deed there is no evidence that the land controlled area, and the authorities concerned had in question is a part of the residential area, Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Not just that, merely because the petitioner has sold 100 square yards of area out of the land in question, objection that out of total purchased land vide the abovesaid sale deed, an e yards was sold vide sale deed No.2807 dated 21.11.2019 by doing plotting. In this factual backdrop, he came to the conclusion that the land is residential rather than agricultural. Therefore, as per circle rate, the petitioner is required to pay the stamp duty. Registrar made a reference to the Collector concerned, who, in turn, initiated proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’). During the pendency of the spot inspection was also undertaken by Circle Patwari, plotting was done on the land in coupled with the audit note, the Collector concerned concluded that the land in question is not agricultural, but residential in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed to make the deficiency of stamp duty good to the tune of along with registration fee of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.5,05,350/-). s to be highlighted that the authorities did not have any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the events, which happened post registration of the sale deed. The actual consideration is on the date of registration of the sale deed itself. there is no evidence that the land in question falls within the controlled area, and the authorities concerned had ever declared the land the residential area, as per the provisions of the d Controlled Areas Restriction of . Not just that, merely because the petitioner has sold 100 square yards of area out of the land in question, n e yards was sold vide sale deed No.2807 dated 21.11.2019 by doing plotting. In this factual backdrop, he came to the conclusion that the land is residential rather than agricultural. Therefore, mp duty. Registrar made a reference to the Collector A of the During the pendency of the spot inspection was also undertaken by Circle Patwari, plotting was done on the land in audit note, the tion is not has been directed to make the deficiency of stamp duty good to the tune of that the authorities which happened post registration of the sale deed. The actual consideration is . falls within the declared the land the d Controlled Areas Restriction of . Not just that, merely because the petitioner has sold 100 square yards of area out of the land in question, AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24101 CWP-26109 after registration of the sale deed, does not Thus, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the conclusion arrived at by the authorities is based on concoctions only evidence/material on record to support their version 8. could have ascertained declared as controlled area or for the reasons best known to the authorities, such an exercise was never resorted to. It seems that t the land was sold after just 22 days of the fragmentation required to be reckoned on the date of registration o post events are of no significance as regards consideration 9. as orders petitions. Accordingly, instant writ petitions are 10. case. 06.07.2026 Ak Sharma 24101-2022 (O&M) -4- 26109-2022 (O&M) after registration of the sale deed, does not this Court has no hesitation to observe that the conclusion arrived at by the authorities is based on concoctions only evidence/material on record to support their version The Collector concerned, with the aid of the Act of 1963, could have ascertained, as the whether, the land in question has ever been declared as controlled area or it falls within the residential area. for the reasons best known to the authorities, such an exercise was never resorted to. It seems that the entire case is based upon the land was sold after just 22 days of the fragmentation. It is required to reiterate required to be reckoned on the date of registration o post events are of no significance as regards consideration, upon which, the land is sold. In conspectus of the above, the impugned orders, being patently illegal untenable petitions. Accordingly, instant writ petitions are A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable after registration of the sale deed, does not amend the nature of the land. this Court has no hesitation to observe that the conclusion arrived at by the authorities is based on concoctions only, as it sans any evidence/material on record to support their version. , with the aid of the Act of 1963, , as the whether, the land in question has ever been falls within the residential area. However, for the reasons best known to the authorities, such an exercise was never he entire case is based upon only one factor that the land was sold after just 22 days of the registration of the sale deed, by that value of the stamp duty is required to be reckoned on the date of registration of the sale deed. And, post events are of no significance as regards evaluation of actual , upon which, the land is sold. In conspectus of the above, the impugned notice(s) as well tenable, are set aside in both the petitions. Accordingly, instant writ petitions are allowed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No . this Court has no hesitation to observe that the conclusion arrived , as it sans any , with the aid of the Act of 1963, , as the whether, the land in question has ever been , for the reasons best known to the authorities, such an exercise was never one factor that registration of the sale deed, by that value of the stamp duty is f the sale deed. And, evaluation of actual notice(s) as well in both the A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document