Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2140 (PNJ)

Bahadur Chand v. State of Punjab

2011-12-01

K.KANNAN

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral): - The petitioner challenges the order passed by the authorities under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act redetermining the value of the property mentioned in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. While the petitioner had registered the sale deed in the year 2007 at the prescribed rate of Rs.50 lacs per acre, the Collector had sought to review the decision by acting on the report of the Sub-Division, Dera Bassi that the property was worth of Rs.60 lacs per acre and that it could be sold in the market “at appropriate time” at Rs.1 Crore per acre. 2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that Jamabandi, which was drawn for the years 2002- 2003 referred to the property as Chahi land and even a report of the Sub Division, Dera Bassi had referred to the property as Chahi land and in the inspection, the property immediately adjoining the petitioner’s property had been cultivated with wheat crops. The learned counsel would also refer to the reply filed by the State where the Collector’s rate for a Chahi land was admitted to be only Rs.50 lacs per acre. 3. Adverting to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and the documents relied on by the State referring to the property as gair mumkin plot for the years 2002-2003, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder contending that the Jamabandi entries for the years 2002-2003 as filed by the State are a fabrication and he has relied on the Jamabandi entry with the certification from the Patwari Halqa made on 26.12.2007 (immediately after sale) and on 09.08.2007 (immediately before sale) in which the property has been referred to only as Chahi land. Jamabandi is drawn up once in a period of 5 years and the entries after verification in the year 2007 continued to treat the property as originally entered in the Jamabandi for the years 2002-2003 as Chahi land. 4. The learned counsel also has relied on 3 sale deeds of other persons brought about at the same time where the sale deeds have been registered at Rs.15 lacs per acre treating the respective property as Chahi land. I would hold that the petitioner is entitled to rely on such documents to show that the State action cannot be different for different individuals. I would hold that the petitioner is entitled to rely on such documents to show that the State action cannot be different for different individuals. The counsel for the State, however, says that the sale deeds have been impounded and inquiry are pending. 5. The impugned order cannot stand only for the reason that even the inquiry undertaken before passing the order was legally suspect. The Collector could not have secured a report from Sub Division, Dera Bassi and relied on the same without putting it to the petitioner. Even such a report could not have relied on an observation that the property could be sold at Rs.1 Crore per acre. A subjective assessment of Sub Divisional Officer cannot fulfill what the law requires for an inquiry under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. There has to be objective materials on the basis of which such a decision could be taken. The order impugned is quashed but having regard to the some factual disputes that has come about, I remit the matter for consideration to be taken on the following grounds: 6. The entry in the Jamabandi for the years 2002-2003, recorded before and after registration and issued as certified copies by Halqa Patwari shall be required to be established as true copies since the documents filed before the Court conflicts with the documents, which is sought to be relied on by the State relating to the property as Gair mumkin. The revenue Patwari himself shall be examined by the State to testify the correctness of the particulars, which he had given to the petitioner. The issue of whether the private sales of other persons mentioned above in this order in respect of adjoining lands were impounded or not and whether the issues have been concluded on this day, will also be required to be examined. Any contemplated action in future, shall be irrelevant and the State cannot rely on any action that they propose to take. If they have not already taken any action against other purchasers, the petitioner is entitled to rely on the same and seek for conclusion of the inquiry that the very same valuation that has already been approved, shall also be applied to the petitioner. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. If they have not already taken any action against other purchasers, the petitioner is entitled to rely on the same and seek for conclusion of the inquiry that the very same valuation that has already been approved, shall also be applied to the petitioner. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the Collector on 21.12.2011 and he shall conclude the inquiry within a period of 8 weeks from the date given. --------------