BHUSAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner and his brother purchased a dilapidated building, which was allegedly rented to rickshaw pullers. The petitioner purchased 165 sq.ft. of the building alongwith the open space for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- by means of a sale deed dated 4th May, 1981. The petitioner's brother purchased 165 sq. ft. of land of the building for Rs. 30,000 by sale deed dated 6th May, 1981. Both the portions were in relation to one composite property and it was numbered as 56-C and 57-C respectively. Both were issued notices under the U.P. Stamp Act for deficiency of stamp duty. In the case of petitioner, the authority after considering the matter imposed a deficiency of Rs. 18,105/- and Rs. 5000/- towards penalty and Rs. 4,260/- towards Awas Shulk. In the case of petitioner's brother a penalty of Rs. 3570/- was imposed and deficiency of Rs. 3570/-. Both the petitioner and his brother preferred a revision, which was partly allowed and the imposition of penalty was set aside. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It has come on record that the valuation of the petitioners house was valued at Rs. 2,40,000/- whereas the valuation of the petitioner's brother was Rs. 64,500/-. It is apparently strange that the building which was common and was contiguous to each other had a different valuation. More so the learned Standing Counsel further contends that the petitioner's house was a three storied and, therefore, higher valuation was fixed.

(3.) The Court finds that such allegation has not been proved. On the other hand, it has come on record that the house was one, which was purchased in equal portions by the bothers and thereafter, municipal numbers given. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the deficiency of stamp duty and Awas Shulk imposed on the basis of the valuation made in relation to the petitioners share is incorrect and cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The prescribed authority will charge the same deficiency of stamp duty as has been done in the petitioner's brother's case, which the petitioner will accordingly pay.