JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both parties and issues in both these petitions being common, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners purchased land situated in District Rohtak by two sale deeds dated 20.6.2007 and 30.5.2007 and paid the requisite stamp duty and registration fee on the sale consideration fixed in the sale deeds. On the basis of some audit report respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioners to deposit the deficient stamp and registration fee on the sale deeds. These notices were issued on 15.10.2008. The petitioners were asked to deposit the deficient amount of stamp duty and registration fee amounting to Rs. 32,560/- in respect to deed No. 3194 dated 20.6.2007 and an amount of Rs. 31,760/- in respect to deed No.2305 dated 30.5.2007. It seems that the petitioners did not appear before the Collector in response to the aforesaid notices. The City Magistrate-Collector, Rohtak passed orders dated 19.9.2008 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, whereby the petitioners were made liable to pay an amount of Rs. 32,560/- relating to sale deed No. 3194 and an amount of Rs. 31,760/-re-lating to sale deed No. 2305 within 30 days. Petitioners preferred appeals before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The Appellate Authority vide a common order dated 25.11.2008 dismissed these appeals. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner (Appellate Authority) are subject-matter of challenge in the present petitions.

(3.) From the perusal of the impugned orders, it has been revealed that the Sub Registrar registered the sale deeds on the basis of the stamp duty and registration fee paid on the amount of sale consideration fixed in the sale deeds. It appears that some objections were raised by the audit party and on that basis the Sub Registrar referred the matter to the District Revenue Officer-cum-Col-lector. The Collector himself visited the spot in presence of the Halqa Patwari and proceeded to assess the value of the land. It has been recorded in the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 that the land is nearer to the Sheetal Nagar residential area and accordingly assessed the value of the land as residential. The assessed value being more than the sale consideration differential/deficient stamp duty and registration fee is sought to be recovered.