RAM SEWAK AND RAM SAGAR SONS OF SEMPAT RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (PROTOCOL) AND CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, petitioners are challenging order dated 21st October, 2000, passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. at Allahabad and the order dated 17.6.1996, passed by the Additional Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Protocol), Varanasi imposing an additional stamp duty of Rs. 18342 -50 and the penalty of Rs. 36,685/ -.

(2.) THE facts borne out from the record makes it clear that petitioners, who are real brothers, purchased Plot No. 630, area 24 decimal situated in Village Karnadadi, Pargana Kaswar, Tehsil and District Varanasi. A report was submitted by the Sub Registrar, Gangapur, that the share of both the transferees will come to 0.12 acre each and, therefore, valuation of the land under the sale deed should be assessed treating it non -agricultural land. On the said report, notice was issued to petitioners, who filed their objection pleading therein that the land was purchased for agricultural purposes, assessment was made on market value and stamp duty was paid accordingly. It was further pleaded that both the transferees are real brothers and members of one family and imposition of additional stamp duty treating them separately is highly arbitrary and unwarranted. The Additional Collector, by the impugned order, presuming the petitioners' land as non -agricultural imposed an additional stamp duty of Rs. 18342 -50 and the penalty of Rs. 36,685/ -. Revision preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned order suffers from error of law in assessing the land in dispute as non -agricultural land and imposition of additional stamp duty as well as penalty are against the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He further urged that presumption drawn by the authorities below is unsustainable in law and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.