CHREDILAL Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma holding brief of Shri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned standing Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, District Pratapgarh and the order dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.

(2.) Briefly stated fact of the present case are that the petitioner purchased certain plots of land of village Sheetalmau, Pargana Rampur Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh vide registered sale-deed dated 24.11.2003. The stamp duty was paid on a value of Rs. 3,16,000/-. A spot inspection was conducted on 7.6.2004 by the Sub-Registrar, Lalganj, in which, he found that on the back side of the vended property, the purchaser has constructed a wall and on the other two sides pillars have been made. On the basis of this report, the ADM (F&R), Pratapgarh initiated proceedings under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner submitted his objection. He stated that on the date of execution of sale-deed, the vended property was and it still continues to be the agricultural land and agricultural operations are going on. He also stated that after execution of the sale-deed a wall on the back side of the vended property was constructed and pillars on two sides have been made for protection of property. The ADM recorded the finding that on the back side, there is a wall and remaining land has been demarcated by constructing pillars. He came to the conclusion that in future the remaining land shall be used for residential or commercial purpose. On these assumptions, he passed the order dated 31.8.2004 in stamp case No. 168 determining the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 96,300/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.

(3.) Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 1 of 2004 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. By a very brief order dated 6.12.2005, the Commissioner held that it cannot be denied that some portion of the vended property is being used for residential purpose. After recording the said finding, he set aside the penalty and reduced the deficit amount of stamp duty to 50%.