FAZLURRAHMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims himself to be an agriculturist and has an agricultural holding other than the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. It is also contended by the petitioner that even today cultivation is being done on the property in question.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner purchased certain property through a sale deed executed in his favour on 27.1.2003 for Plot No. 60, area 3 biswa 15 dhur after paying stamp duty as applicable to the agricultural land and the sale deed was registered without any objection. However after a lapse of about 15 months, a notice dated 5.7.2004 under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act was received by the petitioner on 27.7.2004. In response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner submitted his objection on 3.7.2004. It appears that the proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, have been initiated pursuant to the inspection made by the Collector himself on 18.6.2004 in which he found that adjacent to the property of the petitioner certain houses were erected. Therefore the Collector held the property of trie petitioner to be Abadi in nature and also having potential of Abadi and has proceeded to determine deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 59,600/- and after including penalty and interest etc, a demand has been made for a total amount of Rs. 82,000/- vide order dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56(1) of the Act and the Commissioner has also affirmed the order of the Collector.

(3.) Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure as prescribed under Section 47-A(3) of the Act has not been complied with by the Collector in determining the deficiency of stamp duty. It is further contended that the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A{3) was a report of the Collector himself who and inspected the property prior to the issuance of notice on 18.6.2004 However after issuance of notice no further inspection was made nor the petitioner was associated with any inspection. It is contended that the Collector has relied upon his own ex parte inspection which is against the spirit of Section 47-A.(3) Accounting to learned counsel any prior inspection is only relevant for the purpose of intiating proceeding under Section 47-A(3). However, once proceedings are intiated, the Collector has to determine the fair market value on his own upon further making inspection and in such inspection the petitioner ought to have been included which is not the procedure adopted by the Collector in the present case. According to the petitioner no subsequent spot inspection was made and the Collector has proceeded to determine the market value only on the basis of the houses that are standing on the property nearby. It is also contended that in the sale deed the said houses have been disclosed by the petitioner. As such there is no concealment on the part of the petitioner thereby no penalty could have been imposed by the Collector.