NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing notice dated 7.2.2001 (Annexure P-1) issued by District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Yamuna Nagar (respondent No. 2) under Rule 5(1) of the Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 (for short, 'the Rules') and orders dated 4.9.2002 (Annexure P-3) and 25.2.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2 and Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala (hereinafter described as 'the Commissioner'), respectively under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioners purchased five acres of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village Radaur, Sub-tehsil Raduar, District Yamuna Nagar vide sale deed No. 57 dated 9.4.1999 for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 80,000/- per acre). They presented the sale deed for registration before Sub Registrar, Yamuna Nagar and paid stamp duty of Rs. 50,000/-. The officer concerned registered the document on that very day without raising any objection, but after a gap of about two years, respondent No. 2 issued notice Annexure P-1 to the petitioners and asked them to produce evidence in regard to value of the property. They filed reply to contest the notice by asserting that respondent No. 2 did not have the jurisdiction to re-assess the value of the property and that the price specified in the sale deed was based on the actual market value. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed order Annexure P-3 vide which he determined the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre and directed the petitioners to deposit additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,06,250/-. The appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 47- A(4) of the Act was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order Annexure P-5.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the determination of the value made by respondent No. 2 is correct and the petitioners do not have the right to challenge the rate fixed by him for the purpose of levy of stamp duty.