High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nripendra Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 23450 of 2005  RD-AH 3303 (27 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23450 of 2005.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who appeared in person, has challenged the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad dated 29th November, 2004 in Stamp Revision No. 297 of 2003-04, under Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act.
The brief facts as set out by the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased an area of 1.710 hectare of land being plot no. 607 for which he paid Rs.85,000/- per Bigha and the total amount of the purchase comes to Rs.10,57,000/- on which the petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.27,020/-. Since the purchased plot was situated within the semi urban area, an additional stamp duty of Rs.100/- per thousand is also liable to be paid by the petitioner, which comes to rs.1,05,700/-, therefore the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.78,680/- less than what he ought to have paid. On a reference being made by the authority concern, the Collector found that the petitioner has not paid the stamp duty on the market value of the land and has deliberately concealed the market value which on an inquiry being made by the Tehsildar concern have submitted his report. Accordingly the matter has been referred to Additional Collector (L/R). The Additional Collector issued notices to the petitioner dated 11th November, 2002, which was served upon the petitioner and petitioner appeared before the Additional Collector (L/R) on 27th May, 2002 and filed his objection along with the evidence. The Additional Collector (L/R) after hearing the parties vide order dated 23rd May, 2003 directed that the petitioner is liable to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.6,780/- and the penalty of Rs.250/-. It is against this order dated 23rd May, 2003, the petitioner has challenged by means of revision before the Additional Commissioner-respondent no. 4 to this petition.
The Additional Commissioner after hearing the petitioner found that the circle rate fixed by the Collector, which has been relied upon by the petitioner was fixed by the notification dated 4th November, 1999, which was applicable for next two years. According to the circle rate determined
by the Collector by notification dated 4th November, 1999, the market value of land in dispute should be Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and thus the total market value of the land according to the authority comes to Rs.10,57,625/-. Since the land is situated in the semi urban area, the petitioner is liable to pay an additional stamp duty at the rate of Rs.100/- per thousand Bigha, which comes to Rs.1,05,762/-, whereas the petitioner has paid only Rs.27,020/-, thus there is deficiency in additional stamp duty is Rs.78,742.50.
It is found that since the sale deed is dated 9th January, 2002, therefore the market value fixed by the Collector by notification dated 4th November, 1999 will not apply because by another notification dated 5th November, 2001 the market value has been revised by the Collector and the Collector has fixed the market value of the land in the area at the rate of 3,00,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.1,70,000/- per Bigha, thus the total market value of the land comes to Rs.12,66,967.50, which according to the Additional Commissioner is the market value of the land on the date of the sale. Since the land is situated in the semi urban area under the master plan, the petitioner is further liable to pay the additional stamp duty at the rate of Rs.100/- per thousand, which comes to Rs.1,26,696.75, thus the Additional Commissioner found the deficiency in stamp duty of Rs.99,676.75. The Additional Commissioner further found that since the purchaser has deliberately concealed the fact that the land is situated in the area which is covered under the master plan and under the semi urban area, therefore the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty and imposed the penalty equivalent to four times of the deficiency in stamp duty, he therefore directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.99,676.75 as deficiency in stamp duty, Rs.3,98,707/- as penalty, Rs.5,000/- towards the additional registration charges and Rs.5,183.18 towards the interest, the total whereof comes to Rs.5,08,566.93.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the Additional Commissioner was deciding only the revision and there was no revision by the department, therefore the order passed by the Additional Commissioner so far as it directs the petitioner to deposit an additional stamp duty by assessing stamp duty on higher rate and penalty thereon as well as the interest was not within the domain of the Additional Commissioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Full Bench decision reported in 2006 (8) A.D.J. 1
(FB) - Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others and submitted that the Additional Commissioner had no power to impose the penalty in view of earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Girish Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1998 A.C.J., 199. It is pertinent to mention here that the Stamp Act as applicable in the State of U.P. has been amended subsequent to the decision of Girish Kumar Srivastava case (supra) by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001, wherein the specific statutory provision is made for imposition of the penalty in case the stamp duty is found to be deficient up to the extent of four times of the deficiency in the stamp duty plus penalty and interest thereon apart from the amount of deficiency. In view of the aforesaid change in the statutory provision as interpreted by the Full Bench in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava (supra), the argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner that no penalty can be imposed deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The another question that has been decided by the Full Bench in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava (supra) wherein the Full Bench has answered the question referred to it that the stamp duty which is liable to be paid by the purchaser would be at market value on the date of the presentation of the document for registration. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay additional stamp duty on the basis of market value declared by the Collector in the year 2001. So far as the argument advanced regarding scope of the revision, suffice it to say that with the amendment in the Stamp Act as applicable in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001, the provision of revision has been substituted by the provision of an appeal, therefore on the date when the Additional Commissioner has decided the matter and even on the date when the revision was filed by the petitioner, it was in fact an appeal which ought to have been filed and therefore in exercising the appellate power the Additional Commissioner has decided the matter. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner with regard to the scope of revision does not arise in the present case. The petitioner, who himself appeared in person tries to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the Additional Commissioner suffer from the error and therefore this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should interfere, particularly with regard to location of the land and the market value. It is not disputed that the location of the land has not
been questioned, nor has been decided by the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order. It is only the market value which has been decided. In my opinion, in determining the market value as per circle rate, the Additional Commissioner has not committed any error. The finding arrived at by the Additional Commissioner has not been demonstrated to be either perverse or suffering from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record. Thus this writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of above discussions, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.