ASHOK KUAMR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Anupma Parasar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh, respondent No. 3 in Stamp Case No. 115 of 2011-12, under section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in respect of Instrument No. 6205 dated 10.11.2010 pertaining to Plot No. 1112, area 0.656 hectare of Village Pisawa, Tehsil Gabhana, district Aligarh, the order dated 20.4.2013 rejecting the restoration application and the order dated 21.9.2013 passed in Appeal No. 61 of 2013.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that part portion of Plot No. 1112, as mentioned above, was purchased vide sale deed dated 10.11.2010. With respect to this instrument a report dated 1.7.2011 was submitted by A.I.G. Stamps. A notice for deficiency of stamp duty under section 33/47-A of the Act, was issued to the petitioner which was duly served upon him. However, the petitioner did not appear and as such an ex parte order dated 11.4.2011 was passed by the respondent No. 3 in Stamp Case No. 115 of 2011-12 determining the market value of the property at three times of agricultural rates as given in the valuation list. The said valuation was taken by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the part portion of the same plot was sold by Instrument Nos. 3367 and 3368 dated 2.6.2010 as residential plots @ Rs. 1100/- per Sq. Mts. In the light of these two exemplars, the respondent No. 3 valued the vended property at three times of the minimum valuation rates of agricultural land and thus, determined the market value of the vended property at Rs. 36,80,160.00. The stamp duty was determined at Rs. 2,57,670/-. The petitioner had paid stamp duty of Rs. 86,000/-. Consequently, the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 1,71,670/- was found. A demand of the aforesaid deficiency in stamp duty was created and a penalty of equal amount was imposed by the impugned ex parte order dated 11.4.2012 without recording any reason with regard to quantum of penalty. The restoration application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 20.4.2013.

(3.) Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 61 of 2013 under section 56 of the Act, before the respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2013. However, the appellate authority also did not record any reason or basis for imposition of penalty of equal amount.