PANKAJ GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the reference dated 26.11.2001 of Sub-Registrar, Panchkula, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, order dated 21.2.2003 passed by Collector, Panchkula, whereby petitioners have been directed to deposit the balance amount of stamp duty of Rs.5,98,650/-, as well as the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt., whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 purchased a constructed industrial plot No.71 Phase-2, Panchkula, measuring 1000 sqm and constructed area ground floor 2248 sq.ft. from one Satish Manchanda s/o Om Parkash for a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs. Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed found that there was deficiency of Rs.1,84,100/- in stamp duty as per market price in the sale deed.

(3.) Accordingly, the purchaser vide receipt No.15 dated 9.11.2001 deposited the deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, sale deed dated 9.11.2001 was duly registered as document No.1317 dated 9.11.2001 by Sub-Registrar, Panchkula. After registration of the document, petitioners applied to the Estate Officer, HUDA for transfer of the plot in question in their name. After the report from concerned JE, Estate Officer, vide memo No.2067 dated 12.2.2002 granted permission for transfer of the plot in the name of petitioners and the plot was duly transferred as such in the records of HUDA on 18.2.2002. After the transfer, petitioners got some construction done over the plot in question during the period from March to June, 2002 at their own expenses. After registration of the document i.e. on 26.11.2001, Sub-Registrar made reference to the Collector, Panchkula, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground that petitioners have got the document registered by showing less covered area; 60-65% is constructed area with double storey lintel building and 3-4 rooms in the rear of the plot and a factory of medicines was also stated to have been installed in the building. On reference, Collector, Panchkula, issued notice to the parties concerned. The petitioners appeared before the Collector and statement of petitioner No.3 Sunil Kumar was recorded. The petitioners also presented bills of the contractor and material, cement, bricks, bajri etc. with respect to the construction carried out by the petitioners on the plot in question after registration of the document between March to June, 2002. Besides, a copy of the transfer permission in respect of the plot in question given by HUDA was also placed on record. The Collector, Panchkula, inspected the site in question on 21.2.2003. Thereafter the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved against the order passed by Collector, petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division and the same was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.