JILEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. Pleadings of the parties have also been examined.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the respondent No. 4 in Stamp Case No. 107 of 2008-09, the demand notice dated 19.11.2009 and sale proclamation dated 15.1.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner executed an unregistered agreement to sell immovable property on 3.10.2008 in favour of the respondent No. 5 Raj Kumar only for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The said agreement to sale was subjected to proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determining the deficiency in stamp duty. The authorities under the Stamp Act initiated proceedings in the name of respondent No. 5 Raj Kumar and, vide order dated 29.9.2009, determined the deficiency in stamp duty. Subsequently, demand notice dated 19.11.2009 and the sale proclamation dated 15.1.2010 have also been issued in the name of respondent No. 5 for recovery of the deficient stamp duty, penalty and interest as imposed. In the said demand notice and the sale proclamation the immovable property of the petitioner has been mentioned and described and as such the amount is sought to be recovered by the sale of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner.