ARUNDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN some stamp matters learned counsel for the petitioners stated that different officers were given different targets by their higher authorities for realization of stamp duty and penalty. However, the Court could not find any good evidence in support of the said assertion. But, on the basis of experience gained while sitting for the last six months in this jurisdiction I can safely say that in some of the cases which came before me different authorities and officers went out of their way to extract as much amount as possible by way of stamp deficiency and penalty. Provisions of Section 47A of the Stamp Act shall not be overstretched lest they break. During last three or four years there has been enormous rise in stamp deficiency cases. It appears that almost every second or third deed is being impounded. This may result in killing the goose, which is laying golden eggs. If this practice is continued for a longer period execution and all registration of all sorts of deeds in Uttar Pradesh may become obsolete. Government should not underestimate the ingenuity of the public. It is quite possible that immovable property may change hands even without any deed either registered or un -registered. This will not only deprive the State Government of the valuable revenue which it is earning through stamp duty but will also give rise to enormous disputes and litigation in respect of immovable properties.

(2.) SUB -Registrar's primary duty is to register the deeds. They are now being directed to at least spare one day per week from their regular duties and inspect the properties in respect of which they have registered the deeds and ascertain whether proper valuation of the property was given in the deed or not.

(3.) IN most of the cases Tehsildar or some other authority files report on the basis of ex parte inspection and the authority hearing stamp cases decides the case only on the basis of that ex parte report.