Harpal Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

"

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the paper book.

While passing the impugned order, learned Collector had merely relied on the report of Halqa Patwari and indicated nothing as to on what basis, the Halqa Patwari arrived at figures i.e. Rs.1600/- to 1800/-, to be the price of the land. The respondents have admitted the collector rate @ Rs.1200/- per square yard in the area concerned. In the absence of any other evidence, price of land in the area concerned, could not be assessed more than the collector rate. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The orders of the Collector, as also that of the Commissioner, Patiala Division assessing the price of the land @ Rs.1800/- per square yard, are quashed.

The petitioners are directed to pay the stamp duty as per the Collector rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard. The excess amount that becomes payable on that basis together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the same fell due till payment, be paid by the petitioner within three months from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly."

2.3 It appears that after deposit of the due amount by the petitioners in compliance of the aforesaid order (Annexure P-1), and since the original Sale Deed was to be returned to the petitioners, the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sahnewal, vide letter dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P-2), called for the office copy of the said Sale Deed from the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana (East), where the document had been registered, so that a necessary entry regarding its release could be made on the original Sale Deed.

2.4 It is averred that the petitioners submitted various representations seeking release of the original Sale Deed and sanction of mutation in their favour; however, no action was taken on their requests. It is further stated that even the legal notice dated 30.07.2019 failed to invoke any response from the respondent authorities. Consequently, the petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, however, upon receiving no response, they were constrained to file an appeal under the Right to Information Act.

2.5 2.6 According to the petitioners, they had applied for a certified

copy of the office copy of Sale Deed at the Sewa Kendra, D.C. Office, Ludhiana, vide application dated 09.02.2023; however, the same was returned with the remark that the record of the Sale Deed is not available. 2.7 3.

In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking relief(s) as noticed hereinabove. 4.

In the present case, reply dated 20.06.2025 has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, wherein, in paragraph No. 5, it has been stated that on the date of execution and registration of the Sale Deed dated 13.11.2006 in favour of the petitioners, M/s Premier Complexes Company Ltd. was not the owner of the property measuring 500 square yards purportedly sold/transferred to the petitioners under the said Sale Deed. 5.

The averments made in the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 have been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.

8.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.