STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusMANOJ KUMAR

                      [2010] 3 S.C.R. 175


                STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               A
                                v.
                       MANOJ KUMAR
               (Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010)
                        MARCH 9, 2010
                                                                      B
    [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                 SHARMA, JJ.]

     CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
                                                                      c
      Article 227 - Jurisdiction under - Sale deed executed
pursuant to decree passed in a suit for specific performance
of contract - Report of Joint Sub-Registrar that property was
under-valued - Finding of fact recorded by District Collector
and upheld by Commissioner that suit for specific                     0
performance of contract was filed to evade substantial stamp
duty, set aside by High Court - HELD: High Court, under its
limited jurisdiction under Article 227, erred in interfering with
concurrent finding of fact of authorities below - Observations
made by High Court that the authenticity of the decree passed         E
by civil court could not be questioned and genuineness of
sale deed was to be presumed, cannot be sustained -
Judgment of High Court set aside - Vendee directed to pay
differential stamp duty - Transfer of property - Circle rates -
Registration of sale deed in pursuance of decree passed by
court - Liability to pay differential stamp duty, if property found   F
to have been under-valued in the suit.

      Transfer of property - Sale deed - Registration of -
Circle rate/Collector rate - HELD: In order to ensure that there
is no evasion of stamp duty, issuance of notification fixing          G
circle rates or collector rates has become imperative.

     Pursuant to a decree passed in a suit for specific
performance of contract, a sale deed for a commercial
plot admeasuring 788 sq. yards was registered in favour
                              175                                     H
    176      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A of the plaintiff-respondent for a sale consideration of
  Rs.2,00,000/-. The registration charges paid were
  Rs.31,000/-. On the report of the Joint Sub-Registrar that
  the property was under-valued inasmuch as the circle
  rate/Collector rate of the property being Rs.4200/- per sq.
B yard, the value of the property worked out to be
  Rs.33,09,600/- liable to registration charges of
  Rs.5, 13,050/-, the District Collector directed the
  respondent to pay the differential stamp duty amounting
  to Rs. 4,82,050/- . In the appeal filed by the respondent
c before the Commissioner, the stand of the Revenue was
  that the agreement of sale was executed on 10.11.1999
  with the entire sale consideration having been paid and
  possession of the plot delivered, but the sale deed was
  not executed till 9.2.2001 .. Rather, a suit for specific
  performance of agreement was filed on 14.9;2000 without
0
  impleading the appellants and the same was promptly
  decreed on 9.2.2001. Thus, the suit was filed only with the
  purpose to evade the substantial stamp duty. The
  Commissioner upheld the order of the District Collector.
  But the High Court in the writ petition filed by the
E respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
  set aside the orders of both the authorities below.
  Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
       HELD: 1. The Supreme Court over 50 years has been
  consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the
  High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
  cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of
G fact and setting aside the judgments of the courts below
  on merits. The High Court, in the impugned judgment,
  has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of
  fact of the authorities below under its limited jurisdiction
  under Article 227 of the Constitution. [Para 29 and 35)
H (185-G; 187-E]
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR               177


     Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of A
Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others 1958
 SCR 1240=AIR 1958 SC 398; Nibaran Chandra Bag v.
Mahendra Nath Ghughu 1963 Suppl. SCR 570 = AIR 1963
SC 1895; Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others 1984
(1) SCR 211 = (1983) 4 SCC 566; Laxmikant Revchand B
Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi
(1995) 6 SCC 576; Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni &
Others 1998 (2) SCR 197 =(1998) 3 SCC 341; Virendra
Kashinath Ravat & Another v. \{inayak N. Joshi & Others
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 = (1999) 1 sec 47, relied on.   c
     2.1. The High Court erroneously observed that "the
authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be
questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price
has to be presumed." This finding of the High Court
cannot be sustained. It would have far reaching                D
ramifications and consequences. If the genuineness of
the sale price entered into by the buyer and the seller
cannot be questioned, then in majority of the cases it is
unlikely that the State would ever receive the stamp duty
according to the circle rate or the collector rate. The        E
approach of the High Court is totally unrealistic. [Para 36]
[187-G-H; 188-A]

     2.2.ln order to ensure that there is no evasion of
stamp duty, circle rates are fixed from time to time and       F
the notification issued to that effect. The issuance of such
notification has become imperative to arrest the tendency
of evading the payment of actual stamp duty. It is a
matter of common knowledge that usually the circle rate
or the collector rate is lower than the prevalent actual       G
market rate but to ensure registration of sale deeds at
least at the circle rates or the collector rates such
notifications are issued from time to time. [Para 39] [188-
E, F]
    2.3 It is not ~js_pu~e~ that in the instant case the       H
    178      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 3 S.C.R.


A commercial plot of 788 sq. yards was valued by the circle
  rate at Rs.4,200 per sq. yard fixed by the Collector,
  meaning thereby that after the notification, no sale deed
  could be registered for an amount lesser than Rs.4,200/-
  per sq.yard. The High Court has not properly construed
B the observations of the District Collector to the effect that
  the suit was filed in the civil court with the intention to
  avoid tax and stamp duty inasmuch as the value of the
  property as per the circle rate was Rs.33,09,600, on which
  stamp duty to be paid was Rs.5, 13,050/- whereas the
c stamp duty actually paid was only Rs.31,000/-, therefore
  stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,82,050 was payable. This
  order was upheld by the Commissioner. The High Court
  while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 has set
  aside the orders passed· by the authorities below without
0 any basis or rationale. Apart from the jurisdiction, even
  what is factually stated in the order of the District
  Collector as upheld by the Commissioner, is
  unexceptionable and any interference was totally
  unwarranted. [Para 40-41] [189-B-C; D-E]
E     2.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
  impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
  sustained and is accordingly set aside, and the order
  passed by the District Collector, as upheld by the
  Commissioner, is restored. The respondent is directed to
F pay the balance stamp duty. [Para 42] [189-F, G]
         State of Punjab & Others v. Mohabir Singh etc.etc. 1995
    (5) Suppl. SCR 520 = (1996) 1 SCC 609; R. Sai Bharathi v.
    J. Jaya/alitha & Others 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 85 = (2004) 2
    sec 9, cited.
G
                        Case Law Reference:
          1958 SCR 1240          relied on            para 23
          1963 Suppl. SCR 570    relied on            para 24
H         1984 (1) SCR 211       relied on            para 25
                                                                        -
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                    179

     (1995) 6 sec 576           relied on             para 26       A

     1998 (2) SCR 197           relied on             para 27
     1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 relied on                para 28
     1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 520 cited                    para 32
                                                                    B
     2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 85cited                      para 33
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2226 of 2010.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 4.2.2008 of the High           C
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 12094
of 2007.

    Puneet Mittal, AAG, Naresh Bakshi, T.A. Mir and Ankur
Aggarwal for the Appellants.                                        D
    Manoj Swarup, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Ashok Anand and
Ajay Kumar for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    E
     DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted .
    . 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
4.2.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in a Civil Writ Petition No.
                                                                    F
12094 of 2007.
    3. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment
of the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the
concurrent findings of courts below while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution    G
of India.

     4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal
are as under:-

    5. On 10.11.1999, an agreement to sell a commercial plot        H
    180     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 3 S.C.R.


A measuring 788 sq.yards located on Delhi-Mathura Mewla
  Maharajpur, Faridabad was executed by Smt. Manjula Gulati
  in favour of respondent, Manoj Kumar. The entire sale
  consideration was paid and the actual possession was also
  given, but the sale deed was not executed till 9.2.2001.
B
        6. According to the appellants, in order to evade
  substantial stamp duty, the respondent filed a suit, without
  impleading the appellants as parties to the suit, for specific
  performance of agreement to sell dated 10.11.1999 executed
  by Smt. Gulati for the sale of property measuring 788 sq.yards
C for a total consideration of Rs.1,95,000/-. The suit was promptly
  decreed in favour of the respondent by the Civil Judge (Junior
  Division), Faridabad. The suit as a matter of fact was filed on
  14.9.2000 and decreed on 9.2.2001 and no further appeal was
  filed which clearly indicated that the suit was filed between the
D parties only with the purpose to evade the substantial stamp
  duty. The court directed its Reader to execute the decree and
  get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondent. The
  Reader of the court at the court's direction appeared before
  the Sub Registrar on 9.2.2001 and got the sale deed registered
E in favour of the respondent for the property for a sale
  consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the appellants, the
  court decree was obtained by concealing the material facts in
  order to evade the actual payable stamp duty.

F      7. According to the appellants, the Joint Sub Registrar,
  Faridabad made a report that the sale deed executed on
  9.2.2001 by respondent Manoj Kumar and the owner Manjula
  Gulati was under-valued. According to him, no sale deed can
  be registered for an amount which is less than the amount fixed
G by the collector or the circle rate (Rs.4,200/- per Sq.Yard).

      8. The total value of the land at the rate of Rs.4,200/- per
  Sq.Yard works out to be Rs.33,09,600/-. On that amount, the
  stamp duty registration charges of the sale deed payable would
  be Rs.5, 13,050/-. In the instant case, the respondent has only
H paid Rs.31,000/- towards the stamp duty which was obviously
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                   181
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
under-valued.                                                      A

     9. The District Collector, Faridabad in his order directed
the respondent to make payment of difference of the amount
of stamp duty amounting to Rs.4,82,050/-.

     10. The interpretation of amended section 47(A) of the        8
Haryana Act has to be in consonance with the notified circle
rates and any value fixed below that would be in direct conflict
with the prevalent law of the land and, therefore, liable to be
struck down by the authorities.
                                                                   c
    11. Section 47-A of the Haryana Amendment to Stamp Act,
as applicable to the parties, reads as under:-

    S.47-A. - Instruments under-valued, how to be dealt with.
    - (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the
    Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument       D
    transferring any property, has reason to believe that the
    value of the property or the consideration, as the case may
    be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may,
    after registering such instrument, refer the same to the
    Collector for determination of the value or consideration,     E
    as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

    (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1 ), the
    Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable
    opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in     F   1




    such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under
    this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty
    as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall
    be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

    (3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of refere11ce G
    from the Inspector-General of Registration or the Regi13trar
    of a district, in whose jurisdiction the property or any
    portion thereof, which is the subject-matter of the
    instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act,
    1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration· H
    182       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-
          section (1 ), call for and examine the instrument for the
          purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its
          value or consideration, as the case may be, and the.duty
          payable thereon and if after such examination, he has
s         reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not
          been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the
          value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in
          accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section
          (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be
c         payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

         12. According to the District Collector, Faridabad the
    respondent did not truly set-forth the true value in the instrument,
    therefore, order under s·ection 47-A was passed against him.

D       13. The respondent aggrieved by the said order of the
  District Collector filed an appeal before the Commissioner,
  Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (Haryana) challenging the order
  dated 6.12.2005. The Commissioner by order dated 8.6.2007
  dismissed the appeal by holding that the Collector rate or circle
E rate prescribed for sale of land in village Mewla Maharajpur of
  commercial nature was Rs.4,200/- per sq.yard and the
  respondent was directed to pay the balance amount of stamp
  duty.

        14. The respondent aggrieved by the said order of the
F   Commissioner preferred a Civil Writ Petition No.12094 of 2007
    before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

        15. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
  Article 227 of the Constitution has set aside the concurrent
G findings of facts of the courts below and observed that "where
  the specific performance of contract in respect of immovable
  property has been granted, the ostensible sale price given in
  the transfer deed is to be accepted by the Registering
  Authority."
H
     STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                   183
              [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
     16. According to the High Court, this was done primarily        A
on the two grounds, firstly, "because the court has accepted that
price and has decreed the suit for specific performance";
secondly, "there cannot be any opportunity with the vendee to
fabricate an agreement of sale for showing the incorrect sale
price because litigating parties would not ordinarily reach such     B
an agreement and sign the fabricated document."

     17. The High Court further observed that "the authenticity
of the decree passed by the court cannot be questioned.
Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has to be
presumed."                                                           C

     18. The appellants were not parties in the first place in the
said suit and, therefore, either in law or on facts could not be
bound by such a decree hence, such observation and finding
on the fact of it is illegal and liable to set aside.                o
     19. The High Court in the impugned judgment has set
aside the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The
appellants aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High
Court have preferred this appeal. The appellants are particularly
aggrieved by the observations of the High Court that "the            E
authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be
questioned. Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has
to be presumed."

      20. According to the appellants, the High Court failed to      F
appreciate that the respondent had intentionally evaded
payment of the true stamp duty Stamp duty charges on the
circle rate or the collector rate for the sale of commercial plot
of 788 sq.yards were Rs.5, 13,050 whereas the respondent
paid only Rs.31,000/-. Hence the respondent was under the            G
bounden obligation to pay the balance amount of ~s.4,82,050/
-.
    21. The appellants also urged that when the respondent
had paid the full amount of sale consideration on 10.11.1999,
then why was the sale deed executed only on 9.2.2001? The            H
-
        184       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


    A   respondent has given no explanation for non-registration of sale
        deed for such a long time.

             22. The appellants urged that the jurisdiction of the High
        Court under Article 227 is very limited and the High Court, while
        exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227, has to ensure that
    8
        the courts below work within the bounds of their authority.

            23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench
      of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v.
      Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam &
    C Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227
      is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit
      of its authority or jurisdiction.

           24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case
    0 in a  subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v.
      Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court
      observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by
      any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the
      decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a
    E power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the
      bounds of their authority.

            25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of
        the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim &
        Others (1983) 4 sec 566 . The court observed as under:-
    F
              "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
              under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing
              that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits
              of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the
              face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case
    G
              there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an
              error apparent on the face of the record. There was no
              failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to
              exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of
              principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure
    H
    STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                          185
             [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.}
      adopted by him not i_n consonance with the procedure                  A
      established by law. In exercising the supervisory power
      under Article 227, the High Court does not. act as an
      Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the
      evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court
      or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law          B
      in the decision."

     26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in
 Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing
 Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again                      C
 cautioned that .the High Court under Article 227 of the
 Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all
 species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted
 to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of
 fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice
 would be done unless the High Court interferes.                            D

        27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego
  (Mrs.) v. La/chand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again
  abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere
  with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or            E
  the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.
  Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the
·tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct
  mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-
  appreciating it.                                                          F

      28. In Vireridra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N.
 Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited
 power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring
 that the subordinate courts function within its limits.
                                                                            G
    29. This court over 50 years has been consistently
observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact
and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.
                                                                            H
    186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A          30. According to the appellants, the High Court was not
    justified in interfering with the findings of fact of the courts below.
    Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is
    totally unsustainable.

8      31. Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate appearing on behalf of
  the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According
  to him, the enquiry under section 47-A is confined to whether
  value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. According
  to him, the Legislature has expressed its intention clearly by
C emphasizing the detail i.e. that value as set forth in the
  instrument. Or else, the Le.gislature would have used the
  terminology 'market value' or 'circle rates'.

        32. Mr. Swarup placed reliance on State of Punjab &
    Others v. Mohabir Singh etc.etc. {1996) 1 SCC 609. This
D Court in this case held as under:

          "5. It will be only on objective satisfaction that the Authority
          has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument
          relating to the transfer or property has not been truly set
          forth or valued or consideration mentioned when it is
E
          presented for registration ............. .

          6. It would thus be seen that the aforesaid guidelines would
          inhibit the Registering· Authority to exercise his quasi-
          judicial satisfaction of the true value of the property or
F         consideration reflected in the instrument presented before
          him for registration. The statutory language clearly
          indicates that as and when such an instrument is presented
          for registration, the sub-Registrar is required to satisfy
          himself, before registering the document, whether true
G         price is reflected in the instrument as it prevails in the
          locality ........... "
        33. Mr. Swarup further submitted "that circle rates have
    been held to constitute only one of the factors to be taken into
    consideration. Circle rates cannot be regarded as the last word
H
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                       187
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
                    '
on the subject. This Court in the case of R. Sai Bharathi v. J.        A
Jayalalitha & Others (2004) 2 SCC 9 held that:-
     "22 ..... The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation
     as the last word on the subject of market value ..... "
     "24 .... It is clear, therefore, that guideline value is not      B
     sacrosanct as urged on behalf of the appellants, but only
     a factor to be taken note of if at all available in respect of
     an area in which the property transferred lies ......... "
     34. In the light of the above it is submitted that circle rates
could have been taken as one of the factors and not the last           C
word on the subject. The other factors being:-
      (i)     the price agreed upon between the vendor and the
              vendee
      (ii)    whether it was a distress sale                           D
      (iii)   whether the price in the local area had gene down/
              escalated - at the time of the sale
      (iv)    Other relevant factors
                                                                       E
    35. It is submitted that these other factors have not been
considered, not even noticed by the Authority under the Act."
     36. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court, in the
impugned judgment, has erred in interfering with the concurrent        F
findings of fact of the courts below under its limited jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court
erroneously observed that the "the authenticity of the decree
passed by the court cannot be questioned. Therefore, the
genuinene~s. of the sale price has to be presumed." This finding       G
of the High Court cannot be sustained. It would have far
reaching ramifications and consequences. If the genuineness
of the sale price entered into by the buyer and the seller cannot
be questioned, then in majority of the cases it is unlikely that
the State would ever receive the stamp duty according to the
                                                                       H
    188      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A circle rate or the collector rate. The approach of the High Court
  is totally unrealistic.
         37. The Hfgh Court in the impugned judgment has also
    erroneously observed that "there cannot be any opportunity with
    the venaee to fabricate an agreement of sale for showing the
8   incorrect sale price because the litigating parties would not
    ordinarily reach such an agreement and sign the fabricated
    document."
          38. The High Court gravely erred in not properly
c comprehending the facts of this case in proper perspective and
    which has led to grave miscarriage of justice.
        39. It is not disputed that the commercial plot of 788
  sq.yards located at Delhi-Mathura Mewla Maharajpur,
  Faridabad was valued by the Circle rate at Rs.4,200 per sq.
D yard fixed by the Collector of Faridabad meaning thereby that
  after the notification, no sale deed can be registered for an
  amount lesser than Rs.4,200/- per sq.yard. It may be pertinent
  to mention that, in order to ensure that there is no evasion of
  stamp duty, circle rates are fixed from time to time and the
E notification is issued to that effect. The issuance of said
  notification has become imperative to arrest the tendency of
  evading the payment of actual stamp duty. It is a matter of
  common knowledge that usually the circle rate or the collector
  rate is lower than the prevalent actual market rate but to ensure
F registration of sale deeds at least at th~ circle rates or the
  collector rates such notifications are issued from time to time
  by the appellants.
       40. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has not
  properly construed the observations of the District Collector,
G Faridabad in-which he-has clearly stated as under:-
          "It appears that the suit has been filed in the Civil Court
          and decree passed with the intention to avoid tax and
          stamp duty to be paid to the Government, because when
          respondent had paid entire sale consideration to the
H
   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR                      189
            [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

       vendor, then he should have got the sale deed also             A
       executed at that time, whereas the same has not been
       done. Therefore, keeping into consideration the above
       facts, I come to this conclusion that sale deed No.11200
       dated 9.2.2001 has been executed in respect of land
       measuring 788 sq.yard situated in village Mewla                B
       Maharajpur, which abuts Delhi Mathur Road. This plot is
       commercial and this fact has been concealed by the
       respondent. The sale deed had been registered for less
       value. The market value of the land in dispute as per
       Collector rate is Rs.33,09,600/- on which a total stamp duty   c
       of Rs.5, 13,050/- was payable whereas the respondent has
       affixed stamp duty of Rs.31,000/-. In this manner on the
       above deed, the stamp duty of Rs.4,82,050/- is payable,
       which is ordered to be recovered from the respondent in
       accordance with law."                                          D
     41. This order was upheld by the Commissioner. The High
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 has set
aside the orders passed by the District Collector, Faridabad
and upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon without any basis
or rationale. Apart from the jurisdiction, even what is factually     E
stated in the order of the District Collector, Faridabad as upheld
by the Commissioner, Gurgaon is unexceptionable and any
interference was totally unwarranted.
      42. In the fact~ and circumstances of the case, the
 impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and          F
 is accordingly set aside and the order passed by the District
 Collector, Faridabad which was upheld by the Commissioner,
 Gurgaon is restored. The respondent is directed to pay the
 balance stamp duty within four weeks from the date of this
judgment, otherwise the appellants would be at liberty to take        G
appropriate steps in accordance with law.
    43. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. The parties
are directed to bear their respective costs.

R.P.                                             Appeal allowed.      H