MAYA DEVI YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.8.2000 ( Annexure No. 18-A) under Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed by the Collector, Etah and the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Board of Revenue) U.P., Allahabad in Stamp Revision No. 62/2000-01 (Annexure No.1).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioners purchased 15 years old double storied hotel building consisting of 29 rooms, two store room, 5 shops facing Etah road and 6 shops facing Agra road located on the crossing of GT Road and Agra Road with total ground area of 596 Sq. Meters, falling within the limits of Nagar Palika, Etah. The sale deed was executed on 13.2.1998 and was presented on 14.2.1998 for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Etah who prima facie found that the market value of the property was not truly set forth in the instrument and as such referred the same under Section 47A(1) of the Act to the Divisional Commissioner ( Finance and Revenue), Etah through its Registrar on 16.3.1998 ( Annexure No.-2) stating that the minimum market value of the aforesaid property as per circle rate list under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Rule 1997') issued by the District Magistrate, comes to Rs.1,49,00,000/- as against the value of Rs.36,00,000/- shown in the sale deed dated 13.2.1998 ( Annexure No.1-A). The Sub-Registrar further mentioned that for the purposes of enquiry of the current market value, the matter is being referred under Section 47A(1/2) of the Act. In the reference the Sub-Registrar further mentioned that Stamp Duty of Rs.3,60,000/- paid on the alleged market value of the property in question of Rs.36,00,000/- is deficient. The petitioners filed an objection dated 17.4.1998 before the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Etah stating that the market value of the property in question has been correctly shown and in case of any doubt the competent authority may be directed to make the spot inspection and submit the report. Pursuant to the direction of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), the Naib Tehsildar inquired the matter. He recorded the statement of the petitioner no. 3, who stated on oath that all rooms are let out, it may fetch rent at about Rs.10,000/- per month. He admitted that the building in question was a hotel and is situated at about one Km. from clock Tower Market and about 300 meters from bus stand. The Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 21.5.1998 (Annexure No.4) wherein he suggested the market value of the building in question to be Rs.36,30,000/- without giving any basis. It is stated in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition that the D.G.C. ( Revenue) filed an application dated 13.7.2000 before the Collector, Etah stating therein that the report of Naib Tahsildar is in suppression of the material facts and as such the matter may be re-enquired by the competent officer. Therefore, a letter was sent by the court of the District Magistrate, Etah dated 14.7.2000 under the signature of the A.D.M. (F&R), Etah to the Tehsildar, Etah directing him to submit his report with regard to the market value of the property in question. It appears that at this stage the aforesaid matter was registered as Case No.3/2000 ( Satyadev Pathak Vs. Smt. Maya Devi Yadav and others) under the Stamp Act in the court of Collector, Etah. In this case on 14.7.2000 the vakalatnama was filed and the order for re-enquiry was passed. As per order sheet dated 19.7.2000 of the court of District Magistrate, Etah, the Tehsildar, Etah submitted his report dated 17.7.2000 ( Annexure No. 11) giving details of rent of shops and mentioned that the building in question is a commercial building which is a hotel with facility of foods and snacks and is situate on the commercially important place within the market area. He estimated the market value based on rental to be Rs.1,98,000,000/-. In the meantime the petitioners moved an application before the Divisional Commissioner for transfer of the case from the court of District Magistrate, Etah to the court of some other District Magistrate in the division on which the Divisional Commissioner passed an order dated 15.7.2000 staying further proceedings till 25.7.2000 and called for the report. The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 15.7.2000 has been filed as Annexure 14. Vide order dated 25.7.2000 (Annexure No.15) the Divisional Commissioner directed the District Magistrate, Etah to submit report by 8.8.2000 and till then matter be not proceeded by the District Magistrate, Etah. It is stated in paragraph no. 21 of the writ petition that the stay order dated 25.7.2000 was filed before the District Magistrate, Etah on 26.7.2000 who adjourned the case for 9.8.2000. It is stated in paragraph no.22, 23 & 24 of the writ petition that the Commissioner did not sit on 8.8.2000 and as such his reader fixed the date for 29.8.2000 and therefore the petitioners moved an application for extension of stay order on 9.8.2000 and whereupon the Divisional Commissioner fixed the date for 29.8.2000 and extended the stay order. Petitioners applied for certified copy of the order of stay extension dated 9.8.2000 on the same day, which was received from the court of Divisional Commissioner on 10.8.2000 and the same was immediately submitted to the reader of the District Magistrate on the same day at about 1.00 pm. Copy of the stay extension order dated 9.8.2000 and adjournment application dated 10.8.2000 have been filed as Annexure Nos.17 and 18. On the adjournment application the District Magistrate passed the following order :-

(3.) Thus the District Magistrate, Etah passed the order dated 10.8.2000 ( Annexure No. 18A) accepting the report of the Tehsildar regarding market value of Rs.1,98,00,000/- and determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs.16,20,000/- and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 40(B) of the Act.