IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CWP-7024-2022 Date of Decision : July 16, 2026 MANJIT KAUR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the legality and validity of the orders dated 14.08.2018 and 18.01.2019 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively, whereby the petitioner has been saddled with a liability of ₹2,67,400/- towards deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee, and the statutory appeal preferred by her against the order of the Collector has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 8 Kanals of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Talwandi Bhai vide Sale Deed No.1151 dated 09.03.2016, which constituted 160/670 share out of the total joint land measuring 33 Kanals 10 Marlas. It is contended that, as per the revenue record, out of the aforesaid joint land, an area measuring 25 Kanals 10 Marlas stands recorded as Chahi (land cultivable through tubewell), whereas only 8 Kanals stands recorded as Gair Mumkin (non-cultivable land). However, while determining the alleged DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.21 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-7024-2022 2 deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee, the Collector proceeded to treat the entire joint holding as Gair Mumkin and, accordingly, fastened the liability of payment of enhanced stamp duty upon the petitioner, which is legally unsustainable. 3. It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated on the basis of an audit objection, pursuant whereto the Collector and the Commissioner (Appellate Authority) proceeded to justify the audit opinion and determined deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee in respect of the sale deed in question, without undertaking an independent assessment of the factual position. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned orders warrant interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the total joint land measuring 33 Kanals 10 Marlas has not yet been partitioned and, therefore, the petitioner, having purchased 8 Kanals out of the said joint land, is a co-sharer in every inch thereof. It is further submitted that since an area measuring 8 Kanals stands admittedly recorded as Gair Mumkin in the revenue record, the Collector rightly determined the deficiency in stamp duty by treating the land purchased by the petitioner as Gair Mumkin. 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court finds merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. This conclusion is arrived at for the reason that the petitioner has purchased only 8 Kanals of land out of the total joint land measuring 33 Kanals 10 Marlas, wherein, as per the revenue record, only 8 Kanals stands recorded as Gair Mumkin, DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.21 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-7024-2022 3 whereas the remaining land stands recorded as Chahi. Furthermore, the record reveals that the seller had raised construction over the said 8 Kanals of Gair Mumkin land. The mere fact that the land remains unpartitioned cannot, by itself, justify treating the entire joint holding as Gair Mumkin for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, contrary to the entries reflected in the revenue record. Accordingly, the petitioner, who has purchased only a share out of the joint holding and is in possession of Chahi land, cannot be fastened with the liability of payment of stamp duty by treating the entire joint land measuring 33 Kanals 10 Marlas as Gair Mumkin. 6. The Collector and the Commissioner (Appellate Authority) failed to appreciate the aforesaid material aspect. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 14.08.2018 and 18.01.2019 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 16, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.21 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment