ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

(2.) Petition has been filed assailing order dtd. 23/8/2002 passed under Sec. 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899 as well as appellate order dtd. 12/6/2003 passed in Appeal under Sec. 56 of the Act whereunder additional stamp duty along with penalty has been imposed upon petitioner primarily on the ground that he is in possession of excess area than is indicated over plot in question in the sale deed dtd. 25/6/2002. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of instrument of transfer dtd. 25/6/2002, he had purchased a portion of gata No. 438 situate in village Janora, Paragana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil and District Faizabad whereafter on the basis of an ex parte spot inspection conducted by Tehsildar dtd. 28/7/2002, proceedings under Sec. 47-A of the Act were initiated against petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner had filed his objections to the spot inspection report which however were not considered and the order has been passed by the assessing authority primarily on the spot inspection report on the ground that as per measurement of the property purchased, excess land is in possession of the petitioner than is indicated in the sale deed. The aforesaid finding has thereafter been affirmed by appellate authority under Sec. 56 of the Act without considering the aspect that stamp duty is leviable only on the area indicated in the instrument of transfer since petitioner would not derive any title or ownership over any property beyond the area indicated in the instrument. As such it is submitted that authorities fell in error in allowing reference under Sec. 47-A of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise the spot inspection report was ex parte and no prior notice thereto was ever provided to petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Mustafa Ali Khan versus Raj Rajeshwari Devi reported in 1959 A.I.R. Allahabad 583 and Smt. Bindu Singh versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (26) Lucknow Civil Decisions 1158 to buttress his submissions.

(3.) Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of the spot inspection report will reveal that measurement of the actual area purchased by the petitioner was done by Naib Tehsildar and the petitioner was found to be in possession of excess area that is indicated in the sale deed. It is submitted that there was major discrepancy in the area indicated in the sale deed and actual measurement of the area purchased by the petitioner.