RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.1993 and 26.6.1996 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Shahjahanpur and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., at Allahabad respectively, vide order dated 28.9.1993 the Respondent No. 2 has found the deficiency of stamp of Rs. 1,47,561.50 and imposed penalty of the same amount alongwith Rs. 90/- registration fee, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,95,213/- whereas by the subsequent order the Petitioner's revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., Allahabad.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner has purchased the land measuring about 0.438 aire from plot Nos. 143, 144, 145, 146/1, 147/1, 148 and 149 situated at village Hindu Patti, Tehsil Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur for consideration of Rs. 9000/- and paid stamp duty worth Rs. 1876/- . It appears that the matter was referred under Section 47A(1) of the Stamp Act by the Sub Registrar before the Collector Stamps. Thereafter a spot inspection was made by Tehsildar Tilhar District Shahjahanpur on two occasions in February, 1993, and in August, 1993 and following that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner disclosing therein that although the Petitioner has purchased the land of commercial use but has paid the stamp duty on agricultural rate. The Petitioner has filed reply to the said notice stating therein that Petitioner has purchased the agricultural land and it is being used for agricultural purposes. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) after going through the reply of the Petitioner and the report of Tehsildar has came to the conclusion that the land purchased by the Petitioner was commercial, land but Petitioner, instead of paying the commercial rate has paid the stamp duty treating it as agricultural land. While passing this order the Respondent No. 2 has based his order on the report of Tehsildar, where it is reported that although the land in the revenue record is recorded as agricultural land but it is being used for commercial purposes. It appears Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has placed reliance upon the report of Tehsildar Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur dated 25.2.1993 whereas he has overlooked the subsequent report of Tehsildar dated 16.8.1993 which mentions that plot Nos. 143, 144, 145, 146/ 1 and 147/1 are Kachiyana category of which circle rate happens to be Rs. 30,000/- per acre whereas plot Nos. 148 and 149 are Doem (Doyam) category land and circle rate of which happens to be Rs. 24,000/- per acre. He has also reported that at the time of inspection on the aforesaid plots a Saw Mill, Atta Chakki and Dharm Kanta was found. The Additional District Magistrate Finance & Revenue (hereinafter referred to as A.D.M.(F & R) came to the conclusion that as the land is being used for commercial purpose, therefore, the Petitioner has paid less stamp duty. According to the A.D.M.(F & R) the circle rate for commercial land is Rs. 800/- per square meter and since 1494 square metre land has been purchased, he has calculated the value of the land Rs. 11,95,200 (1494 x 800) and assessed the stamp duty as per Schedule 1 -B of Article 23 Rs. 1,49,437.50 and after reducing the duty which has already been paid by the purchaser, Rs. 1,876/- he found the deficiency of Rs. 1,47,561.50 and also imposed the penalty of the same amount alongwith Rs. 90/- as registration fee.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of A.D.M.(F&R)28.9.1993 the Petitioner filed Revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (hereinafter referred to as C.C.R.A) U.P., Allahabad which was numbered as Stamp Revision No. 1091 of 1993-94 district Shahjahanpur (Rajendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh) and was partly allowed by the C.C.R.A. vide order dated 26.6.1996. The C.C.R.A. has held that the penalty upon the Petitioner has been imposed against the provision of law, therefore, he set aside the order with respect to the imposition of penalty but for other purposes he decline to interfere with the order passed by the A.D.M.(F& R).