JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal requires consideration of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.9319 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed on 08.01.2016. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the property in question which was purchased on 25.04.2007 had been shown as a residential property. The sale consideration had been shown as Rs.32,70,000/- and the stamp duty of Rs.2,61,600/- had been paid on it. Since a complaint had been filed after 5 years by one Kamal Kapoor that the transaction was undervalued and the property was commercial and not residential and located in the commercial area, therefore, the collector had rightly raised the demand of difference in the stamp duty and asked for Rs.12,39,024/- including interest vide order dated 17.09.2012 (Annexure P-2). The appeal had been dismissed since the counsel could not deny the fact that the area where the sale deed was registered was commercial and not residential and they had suppressed the material facts. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim on the ground that even if the Collector had not afforded any opportunity of hearing, the same was available before the Commissioner under the statutory appeal, which was never raised.

2. The issue thus lies in the very narrow ambit regarding the procedure which has been prescribed under the relevant provisions. The property in question which is measuring 18 marlas was sold on 23.04.2007 (Annexure P-1) by the vendors describing it a house situated near Old Courts, Opposite Nehru Garden, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. The description as such was given that on the east there was a road, on the west there were other owners, on the north there was one Ajay Dureja and on the south side there was a hotel. The property was consisting of three rooms, one bathroom, one kitchen, one store which had been earlier purchased by the vendor on 05.03.1990 vide sale deed No.10237. The vendor described the status of the above noted house constructed over the land measuring 18 marlas including all kind of construction raised thereon; all kind of fittings; electricity; water; sewerage and all other rights and appurtenances while selling it to the present appellant. Resultantly, the stamp duty of Rs.2,61,600/- was paid on the sale consideration of Rs.32,70,000/-.

3. Apparently, no issue as such was raised at that point of time of undervaluation by the Sub-Registrar while registering the sale deed. Thereafter, a complaint was received from one Kamal Kapoor that the sale deed No.993 dated 25.04.2007 had been got registered by showing it as house, whereas it is situated in Civil Lines and is a commercial property. The said complaint was inquired through Halqa Patwari by the Collector, who had mentioned in his report that the Company Bagh is situated opposite the said property and sometimes back on the said land Hotel Moti Mahal was existed, which stood closed. Earlier also after the registration of the sale deed the said land had been used as commercial property and, therefore, it would be appropriate to apply commercial rate on the said property. Resultantly, a finding was recorded vide impugned order dated 17.09.2012 (Annexure P-2) by the Collector by noting these facts that the vendee was required to get registered the sale deed for a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- as he got registered the sale deed at less price to the tune of Rs.93,30,000/- and paid less stamp duty of Rs.7,46,400/-. Accordingly, recovery of Rs.12,39,024/- was directed to be paid, which including interest @ 12% per annum amounting to Rs.4,92,624/-. Apparently, no notice was issued to the vendee and straightway the quantified amount was demanded by issuing Form No.2 under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983, vide notice dated 21.09.2012 (Annexure P-3). The factum of the right to file an appeal was also incorporated in the s