DHARMENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.M. Sahal, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents who agree for final disposal of the writ petition at the very outset.

(2.) The Additional Collector, Administration, Etah vide order dated 9.10.2003 determined deficiency in stamp duty in connection with the sale-deed dated 17.11.1999. Against the said order Petitioner filed revision under Section 56 of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. In revision, counsel for the parties was directed to file written arguments within a specified time. On failure of the Petitioner to file written arguments, the revision was dismissed.

(3.) The submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the revision could not have been dismissed for non filing of the written arguments and the authority ought to have decided the revision on merits or could have dismissed the same in default.