HARBANS KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 purchased 89/516 share whereas petitioner No.2 purchased 40/516 share of land admeasuring 3 kanal 4 marla 4 Sarsai out of 129/516 share of Smt. Lajwanti w/o Janak Raj out of land measuring 12 kanal 18 marla falling in Khewat No.443, Khasra No.236//2(4-18), 9 (8- 0) by way of a registered sale bearing Vasika No.1921 dated 07.7.2011 for a sum of Rs. 16,52,850.00. The Sub Registrar, Ratia made a reference to the SDO (C) exercising the powers of Collector, Ratia for recovery of stamp and registration charges alleging that the land is commercial in nature to which collector rate (code No.33) of the year 2011-12 is applicable, which would come to Rs. 46,46,400.00 and the stamp duty of Rs. 1,39,392.00 and registration charges of Rs. 15,000.00 are liable to be paid but the purchaser/petitioners have paid stamp duty of Rs. 49,600.00 and registration fee of Rs. 10,000.00 and thus there is deficiency of stamp duty of an amount of Rs. 89,792.00 and registration fee of Rs. 5,000.00 totalling Rs. 94,792.00. The SDO (C) -cum-Collector, Ratia served a notice to the purchasers/petitioners and vide its order dated 08.2.2012 held that out of land 3 kanal 4 marla 4 Sarsai, 1 kanal 4 marla has to be assessed as per Code No.33 and 2 kanal 0 marla as per code No.55 and thus directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1,20,565.00 towards stamp duty and Rs. 5000.00 as registration fees, total Rs. 1,25,565.00. This order was challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. The appeal was dismissed on 01.7.2014 on the ground that part of the land abuts the road and has thus potentiality of being developed as commercial property. Accordingly, no error was found in the order of the Collector. Still aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), which was dismissed on 27.1.2015 adopting the same reasoning recorded by the courts below. Petitioners have thus challenged all the orders before this Court in this petition submitting that the value of the land has to be assessed on the basis of it being used at the time of its sale and in this regard, they have referred to report dated 19.1.2012 (Annexure P.5) of the Patwari, which has been appended after translation, and read as under:

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioners that the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes and thus it cannot be equated with commercial property on the ground that it can be used for commercial purposes later on. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported as State of U.P and others Vs. Ambrish Tandon and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 865, which has already been followed by this Court in CWP No.17444 of 2013, decided on 21.8.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that no inquiry was held by the Collector and relies on a judgment of this Court reported as Lalita Devi Vs. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) 653.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act because part of the property in question abuts the road and has potentiality of being developed as a commercial property though it may have been used as agricultural land at the time of sale.