NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 11.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by District Collector-cum-Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Mansa and order dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.

(2.) In short, the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 278 sq. yards at Mansa on 02.04.2008 by way of a registered sale deed. Respondent No. 3 served a notice upon the petitioner under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Stamp Dealing of under Valued Instruments Rules, 1983 read with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable in the State of Punjab asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,10,980/- towards deficient stamp duty and Rs. 24,000/- towards deficient registration fee. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 08.02.2012. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice on 30.04.2012 but respondent No. 3, on the basis report dated 04.10.2012 issued by Sub Registrar, Mansa passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) upholding the payment of deficient stamp duty and registration fee. The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 3 before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot who also upheld the same on 15.01.2014.

(3.) After the notice issued in the writ petition, the respondents filed their reply in which it is averred that in the audit report dated 29.03.2011 it was detected that the sale deed was executed at lesser rate by mentioning the wrong serial number of the Collector rate list. The Sub Registrar, Mansa referred the sale deed to the Court of Collector (ADC) Mansa for the purpose of determining the valuation of the sale deed. After receipt of the case from the Sub Registrar, Mansa, the Collector, Mansa respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 08.02.2012 to the petitioner informing that she had evaded the stamp duty while executing the sale deed No. 37 dated 02.04.2008.