CWP-9730-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Ramji Dass Hira Commissioner Patiala and another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG, Punjab. LAPITA BANERJI In Constitution of India impugned order dated September 15, 2016 (Annexure P Collector-respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated March 21, 20 (Annexure P Division Patiala. 2. The case of the petit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.7,07,730/ recovered from the petitioner 2016 passed by the Collector. Without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Commissioner dismissed his appeal vide impugned order dated March 21, 2022. 3. It is s purchased on the same date No.13241 on February 18, 2016 as an consideration of Rs.16,35,000/ 2022 (O&M) Sr. No.249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision : M/s Ramji Dass Hira Lal … Versus Commissioner Patiala and another …Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG, Punjab. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) In the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated September 15, 2016 (Annexure P respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated March 21, 20 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 Division Patiala. The case of the petitioner, in short stamp duty to the tune of Rs.7,07,730/- was imposed and sought to be from the petitioner vide impugned order dated September 15, 2016 passed by the Collector. Without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Commissioner dismissed his appeal vide impugned order dated March 21, 2022. It is submitted that two portions of the same purchased on the same dates, one by the petitioner through Vasika on February 18, 2016 as an consideration of Rs.16,35,000/- and second by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9730-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.02.2025 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG, Punjab. the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated September 15, 2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated March 21, 2022 7) passed by respondent No.1-Commissioner Patiala, in short, is that arbitrarily additional was imposed and sought to be vide impugned order dated September 15, 2016 passed by the Collector. Without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Commissioner dismissed his appeal vide impugned order portions of the same plot of land was by the petitioner through Vasika on February 18, 2016 as an “agricultural land” for a second by the wife and son of the VANDANA 2025.02.25 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9730-2022 (O&M) proprietor of the petitioner the same date i.e. these lands are situated next to each other and there was no impose deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.7,07,730/ firm whereas imposed on the stamp duty imposed on the firm set aside. 4. Learned State counsel State by the deponent wife and son of the petitioner being owners of Vasika No.13240 appeared before the authorities concerned on the date when personal hearing wa fixed. Therefore, the additional stamp duty only to the tune of Rs.1,01,500/- on record. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on r 6. N variance of the quantum of deficit stamp duty. No valid reason has been provided as to February 18, 2016 is considered to be adjoining land which has been registered in sale deed bearing Vasika No.13241 of the even date has been considered to be and not an “agricultural land.” 2022 (O&M) proprietor of the petitioner firm vide Vasika No.13240 the same date i.e. February 18, 2016. Learned counsel argues lands are situated next to each other and there was no deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.7,07,730/ m whereas deficit stamp duty only to the tune of Rs.1,01,500/ the wife and son of the proprietor imposed on the firm is arbitrary and illegal Learned State counsel refers to the reply filed on behal State by the deponent-Collector dated August 6, 2024 to submit that the wife and son of the petitioner being owners of Vasika No.13240 appeared before the authorities concerned on the date when personal hearing wa fixed. Therefore, the additional stamp duty only to the tune of - was imposed upon them after considering the material facts This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. No valid reason has come forth in the reply variance of the quantum of deficit stamp duty. No valid reason has been provided as to why the land situated at Vasika No.13240 registered February 18, 2016 is considered to be an “agricultural land adjoining land which has been registered in sale deed bearing Vasika No.13241 of the even date has been considered to be “agricultural land.” sika No.13240 and registered on Learned counsel argues that both lands are situated next to each other and there was no valid reason to deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.7,07,730/- on the petitioner deficit stamp duty only to the tune of Rs.1,01,500/- was of the proprietor. Therefore, such additional is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be refers to the reply filed on behalf of the ollector dated August 6, 2024 to submit that the wife and son of the petitioner being owners of Vasika No.13240 appeared before the authorities concerned on the date when personal hearing was fixed. Therefore, the additional stamp duty only to the tune of was imposed upon them after considering the material facts This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and in the reply to justify the huge variance of the quantum of deficit stamp duty. No valid reason has been why the land situated at Vasika No.13240 registered on agricultural land” whereas the adjoining land which has been registered in sale deed bearing Vasika No.13241 of the even date has been considered to be a “gair mumkin land” VANDANA 2025.02.25 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9730-2022 (O&M) 7. No cogent such discrepancy in computation of the additional stamp duty and classification of the land in two different categories. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated September 15, 2016 (Annexure P- authorities concerned additional stamp duty Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act consideration the aforesaid facts leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders while passing a Indian Stamp Act 9. With the directions aforesaid, 10. Connected applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. February 19, 202 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2022 (O&M) No cogent or legally sustainable such discrepancy in computation of the additional stamp duty and classification of the land in two different categories. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated September 15, 2016 -3) and March 21, 2022 (Annexure P authorities concerned will be at liberty to proceed afresh additional stamp duty payable by the petitioner A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 consideration the aforesaid facts leading to the setting aside of the ugned orders while passing a fresh order under Section 47 Indian Stamp Act, 1899. With the directions aforesaid, CWP Connected applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2025 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No or legally sustainable reason has been given for such discrepancy in computation of the additional stamp duty and classification of the land in two different categories. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated September 15, 2016 3) and March 21, 2022 (Annexure P-7) are set aside. The at liberty to proceed afresh in respect of the payable by the petitioner as per the provisions of , 1899. They will also take into consideration the aforesaid facts leading to the setting aside of the fresh order under Section 47-A of the CWP-9730-2022 is disposed of. Connected applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.02.25 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document