JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned notice dated 26.07.2011, Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioners have been asked to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,81,500/- as social security fund, as well as the subsequent orders dated 16.05.2012, Annexure P-6, and 08.01.2015, Annexure P-7, passed by respondents No.3 and 2 respectively upholding the imposition of said social security fund.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sukhdev Singh transferred his property situated at Village Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, in favour of his sons, who are the petitioners herein, vide transfer deed No.3580, dated 03.02.2010, for a total consideration of Rs.60,50,000/-, which was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Sunam, in accordance with law and without any objection. Thereafter, almost 1 ½ years later, the petitioners received notice dated 26.07.2011, Annexure P-4, from the District Collector (ADC), Sangrur, respondent No.3 herein, regarding recovery of deficit stamp duty i.e. social security fund @ 3% which comes to Rs.1,81,500/-, which notice was duly replied to by the petitioners by stating that stamp duty has been exempted by the Punjab Government on the transfer deeds on class-I heirs and the necessary registration fee @ 1% has already been paid at the time of registration of the instrument. However, respondent No.3, vide order dated 16.05.2012, upheld the imposition of deficit stamp duty by holding that since the land in question falls within the Municipal Committee, Sunam which has been assigned the status of Class-I Committee and as per directions of the Punjab Government, 3% additional stamp duty i.e. social security fund is to be paid, which was not paid at the time of registration of the document. The statutory appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala- respondent No.2 vide order dated 08.01.2015.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that vide order dated 21.12.2001, Annexure P-1, the Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation (Stamp and Registration Bench) while exercising powers under section 9 (1)(a) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (for short, the Act), has remitted stamp duty in case of transaction of transfer by an owner of agricultural land and rural residential property to his Class-I heir (as defined in Schedule under Section 8 of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956). However, while issuing the impugned notice, said order of the Government, which was in vogue at the relevant time, was ignored. It is contended that additional stamp duty is being asked in the name of 'social security fund' and thus, the provisions of Section 3-C of the Act, have been wrongly interpreted. It is submitted that the objection with regard to deficit stamp duty, if any, should have been raised on the instrument at the time of its registration. Furthermore, the transfer of the property is to class-I heir of the executant and between blood relations i.e. from father to sons, so no stamp duty can be levied as per Annexures P-1 and P-2. Counsel has relied upon judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.25496 of 2012, Dyal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.04.2016, where in similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the orders asking for additional stamp duty.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit th