ROSHAN LAL Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJES Kumar, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad Division, Allahabad dated 9th July, 2003 by which the revision No. 86/6-2002-03 against the order of the Additional District Magistrates (Finance), Kaushambi dated 30-7- 2002 has been rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners purchased plot No. 72 measuring 0. 352 hect. , which is claimed to be an agricultural plot from his brother, Mool Chand for Rs. 22,000/-against the sale-deed dated 12-6-2002 and had paid the stamp duty on the amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. A proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners for the deficiency of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act on the basis of the report of the Lekhpal in which it was reported that there was one diesel pumping set and one pucca room on the plot, which has not been valued and the stamp duty on the said amount has not been paid. THE value of the said asset has been determined at Rs. 1 lac. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Kaushambi, the petitioners filed objections stating therein that there was no pumping set and pucca room on plot No. 72 and it appears that by mistake the Lekhpal has reported so. THE Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Kaushambi without getting the fact verified passed an order on 30-7-2002 and demanded additional stamp duty at Rs. 8,000/- on the estimated value at Rs. 1 lac of pumping set and pucca room and a sum of Rs. 240/- has also been levied as penalty. Petitioners filed the revision against the said order. Before the revisional authority the petitioners filed affidavit dated 26-8-2002 in which in paragraph 4 it has been specifically stated that there was no pumping set and construction on the petitioners land. Revisional authority has rejected the revision and confirmed the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Kaushambi without getting the fact verified as to whether there was any pumping set or construction on the land in dispute. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned orders. In my view, the impugned orders are not sustainable.