MEENAL SAHAKAR AVAS SAMITI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 3 whereby he has rejected the objection of the petitioner and has directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty in terms of the said order. The revision of the petitioner has also been rejected by the learned Commissioner under section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the agricultural land on 16.12.1994 being plot Nos. 440 and 449 area 12 biswa from one Rishi Pal Singh for consideration amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-. On 31.12.1994 the Sub-Registrar submitted a false and incorrect report to the Collector, upon the report the Collector initiated proceedings under sections 33 and 47 of the Indian Stamp Act. A notice was issued to the petitioner under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. By the said order without considering petitioner's reply Rs. 1,05,000/- was imposed as deficiency of stamp duty. The petitioner moved an application for recall/review of the order on 10/11 September, 1998. The said application was rejected. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23.12.1998 has rejected the review application of the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the agricultural land and his liable to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the nature of the land which was at the time of execution of the sale and stamp duty cannot be imposed on the potentiality of the land or its future use. He further urged that the no spot inspection was made and ex-parte order without any material has been passed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Gaurav Khanna v. State of U.P. and another (Writ C No. 24518 of 2006) decided on 1.7.2013; Smt. Sushila Verma v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 2 AWC 1492and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Aniruddha Kumar and another v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and another,, 2000 91 RevDec 566 (Writ No. 7557 of 1996).