Ved Prakash Vijh Thr His Lr And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110
LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
Late Sh. Ved Prakash Vijh through his LR and another
... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
Judgment
Reserved on
Judgment
Pronounced on
Judgment
Uploaded on
Whether only
the operative
part of the
judgment is
pronounced
Whether the full
judgment is
pronounced
12.10.2026 02.11.2026 04.11.2026 No Yes
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate and
Ms. Divya Suri, Advocate
for the appellants.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. This intra - Court appeal has been filed challenging
judgment dated 04.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a writ
petition filed by appellants challenging order dated 09.04.2019, Annexure P26,
passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, affirming the determination
of deficit stamp duty, has been dismissed.
2. The genesis of the dispute lies in the registration of a sale
th
deed pertaining to commercial premises measuring 3556 square feet on the 4
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 2-
floor of Grand Mall Park Complex, Jalandhar. Sale deed dated 01.03.2013,
Annexure P6, reflected a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs. However, on noticing
that it had been undervalued, Sub-Registrar impounded the document and
referred the matter to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, as applicable to the State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as “the
1899 Act”). After affording an opportunity of hearing, Collector determined
the applicable market value at Rs. 7,800/- per square feet, and vide order dated
29.02.2016, Annexure P8, assessed the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs.
30,44,972/-, inclusive of interest. Statutory appeal, preferred by appellants was
dismissed by the Commissioner on 12.11.2016, Annexure P11, which was
challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court. On 10.01.2019,
Annexure P24, learned Single Judge set aside the appellate order holding it to
be cryptic and non-speaking and remitted the matter to the appellate authority
for fresh consideration. Upon reconsideration, Commissioner dismissed the
appeal by passing an order on 09.04.2019, Annexure P26. This order has been
unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge,
who dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned herein.
3. Mr. Pankaj Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellants
has contended that the agreement to sell was executed in the year 2001 and
therefore, stamp duty ought to have been assessed on the basis of the market
value prevailing at that time. He submits that the authorities have erred in
levying stamp duty at the rates prevailing at the time of execution of the sale
deed in 2013. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Single Bench of
this Court in Subhash Chander Abrol Versus. State of Punjab and others,
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 3-
2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 459 to contend that as the entire sale consideration stood
paid and the possession of the premises had been delivered to the vendee,
stamp duty ought to have been assessed on the date of execution of agreement
to sell. It is further contended that the property is situated in a multi-storied
building, and not in a multiplex, and statutory authorities have erred in
proceeding on an incorrect classification of the property. It is asserted by him
that amendment dated 11.03.2011, Annexure P5, to Rule 3-A of the Punjab
Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred
to as “The 1983 Rules”) has not been properly appreciated while determining
the stamp duty.
4. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
upon examining the impugned judgment as well as documents referred to by
him, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
5. The primary question requiring determination is whether
market value relevant for assessment of stamp duty is the value prevailing on
the date of the execution of the agreement to sell or that prevailing on the date
of execution of sale deed. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and
stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan and others Versus M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers (2007)14 SCC
339 . In the said case, parties had entered into an agreement to sell in the year
1983, whereas the sale deeds were executed much later, pursuant to a decree
for specific performance. Upon examining the statutory provisions, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell and conveyance deed are distinct
instruments. Execution of an agreement to sell does not constitute a complete
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 4-
sale. Liability to pay stamp duty on a conveyance is governed by statutory
provisions applicable when the instrument of conveyance is executed. Apex
Court further held that the 1899 Act being a taxing statute must be strictly
construed and that considerations of equity or hardship cannot override its
express provisions. It has been further held that the word “execution” read
with section 17 of the 1899 Act, makes it clear that the instrument has to be
examined at the time when it is sought to be registered and if it is found that
the instrument has been undervalued, then it is open for the Registering
Authority to inquire into its correct market value. This view has been followed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Bhushan (dead) through LRs and
others Versus State of UP and others, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 11 as well as by
Division Benches of this Court in Uggar Singh Versus State of Punjab ,
2025(4) RCR (Civil) 358 and in Nripati Bhalla Versus State of Haryana , Law
Finder Doc Id # 1408951 .
6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, agreement to sell
was executed on 18.05.2001, Annexure P2, whereas the sale deed was
registered on 01.03.2013, Annexure P6. There was an intervening period of
more than 12 years. Appellants cannot insist upon the assessment of stamp
duty at the rates prevailing more than a decade earlier merely because the
agreement to sell had been executed much prior in point of time. The
chargeability of an instrument to stamp duty has to be examined at the time of
execution of conveyance deed. Merely because the parties had entered into an
agreement to sell at an earlier point of time, entire sale consideration had
exchanged hands and possession had been delivered, they cannot claim
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 5-
assessment of stamp duty at the rates prevailing on the date of such agreement.
This is more-so in a situation as the present one where the sale deed is being
sought to be executed after such a long period. No such exception has been
carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above.
The contrary view taken by the learned Single Bench in Subhash Chander
Abrol’s case (supra), therefore, is not a good law.
7. Reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on
amendment dated 11.03.2011 to Rule 3-A of the 1983 Rules does not advance
their case. Rule 3-A, ibid , provides for fixation of minimum market value of
land and properties by the Collector, locality-wise and category-wise, after
consultation with the authority specified therein. This Rule contemplates
consideration of various factors, which can have a bearing upon the valuation.
The accompanying note to Rule 3-A, ibid, expressly provides that such factors
are indicative and not exhaustive. Sub- Clause (c) in Rule 3-A of 1983 Rules,
was substituted to provide for consideration of specified percentages of the
cost of land in relation to the ground floor and floors above of a building. This
amendment does not in any way change the nature of the Rule and has to be
construed harmoniously with the overall scheme of the Rule.
8. Collector had notified the minimum market value for the
year 2012-13 by order dated 09.04.2012 specifying the rates applicable to
different categories of properties. In respect of commercial properties situated
on the third floor and above, which fall in segment Code 02/0069, rate notified
was Rs. 7,800/- per square feet, which has been applied in the case of the
appellants. Learned Single Judge has further recorded that the property was not
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2980-2026(O&M)
- 6-
assessed as a part of multiplex or multistoried building, but on the basis of the
notified minimum market value applicable to the locality concerned. Still
further, it may be noticed that during the pendency of the writ petition, on a
direction passed, District Collector filed an affidavit dated 28.07.2026, and
clarified that the property in question fell in segment 02/0069 and that the rate
of Rs. 7,800/- per square feet was applicable to the commercial properties
situated on the third floor and above in the said locality. Appellants have not
been able to demonstrate any material error in the aforesaid determination. In
absence thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
findings recorded by the statutory authorities. No ground is made out
warranting interference with the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench.
9. For the aforegoing reasons, this Court does not find any
merit in the appeal, which is dismissed though with no order as to costs.
10. All pending miscellaneous application (s) if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Brij
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.11.04 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.