PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Awadhesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dtd. 31/12/2009 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Moradabad in Case No.407/09 under Sec. 33/40/47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Act] whereby, by means of an ex-parte order, deficiency of stamp has been imposed upon the petitioner while relying upon the report dtd. 16/10/2009 of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration. Further under challenge is the order dtd. 26/5/2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Sec. 56 of the Act, being Appeal No.74/2009-10, has been partly allowed by reducing the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner.

(3.) The facts as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner purchased an area of 0.002 hectares from Khasra No.869-Ka, an area of 0.130 hectares from Khasra No.948 and an area of 0.255 hectares from Khasra No.950, totalling 0.387 hectares in Village-Bhogpur, Mithauni, Tehsil & District-Moradabad by means of a sale-deed executed on 27/9/2007, which was registered thereafter. It is stated that the aforesaid land was purchased for agricultural purposes and the stamp duty was paid in accordance with the minimum rates specified by the Collector. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dtd. 31/12/2009 without issuance of summons or notice to the petitioner, in which it was held that the plots in question are for residential usage and, therefore, deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.1,38,400.00 and penalty of Rs.1,38,400.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5% per mensem were imposed. It is stated that on coming to know of the ex-parte order passed by the respondent no.2, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) which was partly allowed by reducing the amount of penalty imposed, though no error was found in the order of the respondent no.2 in assessing the land in question as residential.