PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) - Mother of the petitioner namely Prem Lata Goyal executed a sale deed dated 28.8.2007 in favour of the petitioner in respect to property No.269/16, Ward No.17 measuring 163.50 sq. yards situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Rohtak for a consideration of Rs.7,10,000/-. This property was under the tenancy of Punjab National Bank, Rohtak for the last about 22 years at the time of sale. It is common case of the parties that stamp duty equal to 1/3rd of the market value of the property as determined by the Collector during the relevant year was paid at the time of registration. After the registration of the document the petitioner was served with a notice dated 27.5.2008 under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 4 of Stamp Duty (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 communicating the petitioner that the valuation of the sale deed at Rs.7,10,000/-is the lesser valuation of the property. Petitioner was accordingly asked to appear before the Collector (City Magistrate) on 7.7.2008. In response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner appeared and filed his reply. Collector, however, passed the order dated 29.5.2009 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and asked the petitioner to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 1,30,800/-on the valuation of the property which was assessed as Rs.23,46,000/-. Petitioner was also asked to pay an amount of Rs.7500/-as deficient registration fee. Aggrieved of the Collector's order petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. This appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.3.2010

2. The sole question involved in the present case relates to the interpretation of the Govt. Instructions dated 5.4.2001 which inter alia provide for payment of 1/3rd of the stamp duty in respect to the sale of the properties under tenancy for a period of more than 12 years and less than 30 years. Indubitably, the property subject matter of the sale was under the tenancy of the Punjab National Bank for over a period of 22 years at the time of sale by the mother of the petitioner in his favour. It was on that basis that 1/3rd of the stamp duty was charged at the time of registration of the sale deed. Collector after the sale deed was registered and handed over to the vendee issued notice to the petitioner after about 9 months of its registration. The issue relates to the interpretation of the guidelines dated 5.4.2001. The relevant portion of the aforesaid guidelines reads as under:-

“ 4. Necessary guidelines to get benefit in market value in case of lease/tenancy.

Benefit in the value on lease any tenancy of less than 12 years should not be given. In case tenancy or lease is more than 12 years but less than 30 years, then in that case, whatever is total market value, stamp duty will be charged on its 1/3rd share. For example as per fixed market price, value of property comes to be Rs. One lac, then if lease or tenancy is between 12 to 30 years, then in that case, stamp duty will be paid on Rs.33,500/- value of property.

In case lease or tenancy is more than 30 years, then in that case, what will be market value of the property, stamp duty will be charged on its 1/4th share.”

3. The Collector has interpreted this clause of the Govt. guidelines to mean that if the property is under tenancy of the purchaser, it is only in that eventuality that 1/3rd of the stamp duty would be payable and since admittedly the property was not under the tenancy of the vendee, the Collector in his wisdom found the stamp duty deficiently paid and passed the impugned order for payment of the full stamp duty on the market value of the property at the time of its sale.

4. I have carefully perused the para 4 of the Govt. guidelines dated 5.4.2001. It only provides charging of 1/3rd stamp duty where the property is under tenancy for a period of more than 12 years and less than 30 years. There is not even a suggestion that the property should be under the