FAISAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shobhit Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Sanding Counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an instrument No. 11166/2003 in respect of plot area, 502.66 square meter of Village Manoharpur, Tehsil Moradabad was executed on 18th December, 2003. The case of the petitioner is that immediately after purchase of plot, he started construction work. It is alleged by the respondents that on 20th December, 2003, the plot in question was inspected by the Sub -Registrar -II, Moradabad ana an ex -parte inspection report dated 20th December, 2003 was filed. In the report the Sub -Registrar has mentioned that at the time of inspection, construction work was going on. There is no mention in this report that what was the nature of construction and extent of construction found over the plot in question at the time of inspection.

(2.) PROCEEDING was initiated by ADM (F/R), Moradabad against the petitioner under section 33/40/47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to the "Act"). Merely on the basis of the report of Sub -Registrar, ADM (F/R), Moradabad passed an order dated 1st April, 2005 in Stamp Case No. 1823 of 2004 determining the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 1,76,000/ - as suggested by the Sub -Registrar and also imposed penalty of equal amount

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after purchase of plot in question, the petitioner started construction. The report of Sub -Registrar is ex parte and in fact no inspection was done. He submits, even if it is assumed that any inspection was made by the Sub -Registrar still there is not whisper in the report of the Sub -Registrar that what construction was found over the land in question at the time of the alleged inspection. ADM (F/R) as well as Commissioner have also failed to record any finding as to the extent of construction over the plot in question at the time of alleged inspection by the Sub -Registrar. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order are based on no evidence. The deficiency of stamp duty has been determined merely on the basis of surmises and presumption.