JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-8346-2015, titled Asha Rani v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and another, whereby the order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur, and the order dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed in appeal by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, have been quashed.

2. As per the brief facts, the respondent, Asha Rani purchased 1 kanal and 1 marla of land at Village Garhshankar by way of executing the sale deed dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) and an audit objection was raised that the land is commercial in nature and the Collector rate of such land is Rs. 3,30,000/- per marla and reference was received by the Collector Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector"), under Section 47-A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. Receiving notice, the respondent filed the written statement before the Collector alleging that the land is situated on Anandpur Sahib- Garhshankar main Road, near Village Dugri and is agricultural in nature. It was specifically alleged that it is not commercial in nature and is also not situated at Nawanshar main Road.

4. The spot was inspected by the SDM Garhshankar, who submitted the report dated 30.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) that land is situated on Anandpur Sahib-Garhshankar main Road.

5. Considering the said spot inspection report, the Collector rate fixed for the year 2010-11 as per Punjab Stamp (dealing of the under-valued Instruments) Rules 1983 (Ist Amendment), 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the fact that the respondent was unable to dispute the factum of the said rates, the Collector held the rate of the land in question as Rs. 3,30,000/- per marla. As such he ordered for recovery of total amount of Rs. 3,82,800/- which included deficiency of stamp papers as Rs. 3,61,800/- and deficiency of registration fee as Rs. 21,000/-. Along with the recovery of the said amount, interest @ of 12% was also ordered to be recovered.

6. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P-5) by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

7. Both the said orders were challenged by the respondents by way of filing CWP-8346-2015 and the learned Single Judge observed that the enquiry report relied upon by the State counsel is only regarding a sale deed bearing No. 2515, dated 04.11.2011, whereas the sale deed of the respondent is dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-1). While placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Chamkaur Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 26 and State of Punjab v. Mahabir Singh 1996 (1) RRR 588, it was observed that the authority below had not undertaken the independent exercise in ascertaining the rates, as such, and the demand was not backed by any foundation. Hence, the demand was quashed.

8. The learned State counsel submitted that the respondent has not affixed proper stamp duty as per the prevalent Collector rate fixed for commercial property. The sale deed was got executed by mentioning lessor value by describing it as agricultural land, whereas, it was commercial property. As such, the order passed by the Collector for recovery of deficiency in the stamp duty was based upon the enquiry conducted. Even in the said enquiry, notice was issued to the respondent and she had filed reply before the Collector. In such circumstances, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge that enquiry has not been properly conducted were factually misplaced. Hence, the order was liable to be set aside.

9. On the other land, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no enquiry was conducted. The sale deed was executed in the year 2010. However, the illegal demand subsequently made on the basis of the audit report has