JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - CM-764-LPA-2019

Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 695 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 17.02.2017 of the learned Single Judge.

Notice of the same application was issued on 25.02.2019 but no reply has been filed by the respondent till now.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application and in view of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Resultantly, the present application is allowed and the delay of 695 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-344-2019 (O&M)

Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-20848-2014, titled Ved Parkash v. State of Punjab and others, which has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.02.2017 passed in CWP-8346-2015, titled Asha Rani v. Commissioner. Jallandhar Division and another.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that the respondent purchased a plot measuring 01 kanal and 06 maria, vide sale deed No. 7458, dated 22.02.2012. The said sale deed was impounded by the Sub-Registrar, Bamala, and it was sent to the District Collector, Bamala, for assessment under Section 47-A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-State further submitted that in order to verify the factual position, the Collector Bamala (respondent No. 3) visited the plot in question in the presence of the respondent and the revenue officials found that the plot in question is situated on the Kundi Road Bamala and Shiv Rice Mills (Sheller) is existing on it, as well as a boundary wall has been constructed and wheat was found stored on the spot. It was found that the property was being used as a commercial property. Finding that Collector rate of a commercial property for the year 2011-12 has been fixed as ^11,500/- per yard, the order dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Collector to recover the deficiency in the stamp duty and the registration fee. Even the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on 04.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), considering the facts that the verification and spot inspection was made by the Collector himself along with the field staff.

4. The learned counsel for appellants-State further submitted that in such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deciding CWP-20848-2011 filed by the respondent in terms of the decision in CWP-8346-2015, titled Asha Rani v. Commissioner. Jallandhar Division and another, is not sustainable. Moreover, the decision in Asha Rani's case {supra), has also been assailed by way of fling a separate Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 849 of 2017.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the decision in Asha Rani's case {supra), submitted that the order passed by the Collector and the appellate authority have been rightly set aside by the learned Singe Judge.

6. We have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the paper-book.

7. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the Civil Writ Petition filed by the respondent-Ved Prakash in terms of the order dated 17.02.2017 passed in Asha Rani's case {supra), wherein it was observed that the Collector after receipt of the report did not conduct an independent inquiry in terms of the provision of Section 47-A of the Act. The Ld. Single Judge has relied upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordina