High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bijendra Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Others - WRIT - C No. 68806 of 2005  RD-AH 5266 (8 November 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68806 of 2005.
Bijendra Kumar Gupta. Versus. State of U.P. and others.
Hon�??ble Janardan Sahai, J.
The petitioner purchased the land with some constructions by a sale-dated 12.8.1997executed in his favour by Narendra Kumar Jain son of Sheetla Prasad Jain. Proceedings under Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated. An order dated 4.10.2000 was passed by the respondent no.3 the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut in which he found that the properties were undervalued and he determined deficiency of Rs. 3,29,280/- in stamp duty and also impounded the documents. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision, which was partly allowed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Meerut, respondent no.2 by an order-dated 5.11.2004. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Meerut has remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner.
I have heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.
The learned Standing Counsel has taken instructions from Sri G.K. Srivastava, Deputy Inspector General (Stamp) who is present in court and has made a statement that the writ petition be disposed of today. Accordingly, this petition was heard and is being disposed of finally.
The submission of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that although on the one hand the case has been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) for a fresh decision the hands of the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) have been tied down by directions in the impugned order that he shall treat the valuation in the inspection report dated 5.5.2000 as final. There appears to be some merit in the contention of the petitioner�??s counsel. If the case was being remanded with liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence the hands of the authority could not have been tied down by making the valuation given in the inspection report as final. Modification in the order is, therefore, required to the effect that it will be open to the petitioner to file within a month from today the certified copy of this order along with objections against the inspection report and the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) will re-determine the market value on the basis of the material available before him. If the objections are filed within a month from today the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) shall consider whether the inspection report should be relied upon or not. The Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) shall decide the matter afresh if possible within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with the objections is filed by the petitioner.
Copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner within three days on payment of usual charges.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.