DEO PRAKASH MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kamal Shankar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 21/6/2011 passed by the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra, determining the stamp liability of the petitioner on the instrument in issue as well as the order dtd. 22/3/2012 passed by the learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, affirming the order of the learned adjudicating authority/District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra.

(3.) The learned adjudicating authority/ District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), Sonebhadra in the impugned order dtd. 21/6/2011 has placed exclusive reliance on a report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra, after the inspection of the disputed premises. The report dtd. 30/9/2009 was submitted in the aftermath of the sale-deed. The sale-deed was executed on 20/4/2009. The petitioner had tendered his objection to the aforesaid inspection report. While finding against the petitioner, the adjudicating authority held that insufficient evidence was adduced by the petitioner against the offending report. On this footing, the findings of the report dtd. 30/9/2009 of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sonebhadra in regard to the valuation of the property was upheld. The objection of the petitioner that the constructions were raised and the crushing operations begun subsequent to the date of purchase was accordingly invalidated.