Sushma Rani And ANR v. Commissioner Karnal Division Karnal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : July 03, 2026 SUSHMA RANI AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS V/S COMMISSIONER, KARNAL DIVISION, KARNAL AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Dr. Neha Awasthi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.06.2024 and 23.10.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cumCollector, Karnal, and the Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal, respectively.

2.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners purchased land measuring 1210 square yards vide a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2019. The land was described as "agricultural" in the sale deed, and stamp duty was paid accordingly. Subsequently, upon scrutiny by the Audit Department, it transpired that the land had been purchased by the petitioners in equal shares, i.e. 604.80 square yards each. In terms of Government Instructions No. 5097/STR 1-2000-Special dated 14.11.2000, where a sale deed is executed in favour of two or more purchasers and the share of each purchaser is 1000 square yards or less, the value thereof is to be assessed at

square-yard rates. Consequently, applying the Instructions, the Collector, vide the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, assessed a deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee amounting to ₹53,850/- and ₹7,500/-, respectively, and directed the Sub-Registrar to recover the deficient amount from the petitioners in accordance with law. It was further directed that, in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit the deficient stamp duty and registration fee, notice in Form No.2 be issued to them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 23.10.2025. Hence, the petitioners have impugned both the orders before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being members of the same family, are not governed by the Government Instructions (supra). It is further contended that the assessment of deficient stamp duty is wholly erroneous as no spot inspection was conducted. It is also contended that the land, in fact, falls within the agricultural zone and, therefore, adequate stamp duty had been paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.

4.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners purchased land measuring 1210 square yards under the registered sale deed dated 28.11.2019 in equal shares, with each petitioner acquiring 604.80 square yards. Since the share of each petitioner is less than 1000 square yards, the Government Instructions dated 14.11.2000 squarely apply, thereby rendering the petitioners liable to pay stamp duty on the basis of the square-

yard rates. However, the requisite stamp duty was not paid. Further, the Government Instructions do not carve out any exception or confer any exemption in favour of purchasers merely because they are members of the same family. Consequently, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is devoid of merit. 6.

Moreover, the submission regarding the absence of a spot inspection is also of no significance, as the documentary material available on record was sufficient for assessing the deficiency in stamp duty in accordance with the Government Instructions (supra). 7.

Consequently, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) July 03, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No