RATNESH Vs. COMMISSIONER BARAILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner purchased a property constructed on land measuring 61. 34 square meters, sale-deed of which was executed on 19-7-2000. Rs. 19,100/- was paid as stamp duty on valuation of Rs. 1,91,000/ -. On a complaint filed by the Respondent No. 3, brother-in-law of the petitioner, notice under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner filed her objections. The Tahsildar was required to submit his report, which was done so by him on 23-8-2002. Thereafter vide order dated 16-11-2002 the District Stamp Officer assessed the valuation of the property at Rs. 8,58,760/- and accordingly found that there was deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 66,800/- plus Rs. 1,180/- of registration fee and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 37,408/-, all to be paid alongwith interest. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal, which had been decided by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly by order dated 30-7-2004, whereby the penalty imposed by the District Stamp Officer had been withdrawn, but the order regarding deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee alongwith interest had been upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 16-11-2002 and 30-7-2004 of the District Stamp Officer and the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Siddharth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) IN the orders of the authorities below, the report of the Tehsildar has been discarded without assigning any reason. Even the exemplar filed by the petitioner, which was a sale-deed dated 2-5-2002 of a property in the vicinity, measuring about 62 sq. meters, which was sold for Rs. 1,68,000/-, has not been considered, although the said sale-deed was executed two years subsequent to the sale-deed of the petitioner and was for approximately the same area but for a lesser valuation and had been accepted for registration without complaint. Further, there is no evidence to show that the five rooms were being used as shops. Even otherwise, it is not possible that a building with five rooms constructed in a row, with only one entrance from the first room and exit from the fifth room into a lane, can be used for commercial purposes as five separate shops.