THANSAIN JINDAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders passed by the stamp authorities in the proceedings under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act are under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) Categorical submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders of imposition of deficient stamp duty and penalty are based solely on the reports of the Sub Registrar and Tehsildar. The instrument was impounded on the report submitted by the Sub Registrar dated 27.2.2006 wherein it was stated that during the spot inspection, the plot in question was found to be in commercial use. There were shops in the plot in question and one shop of country liquor was being run therein. It was further submitted by the Sub Registrar that the plot in question was an industrial area and was abutting two lane road having divider.

(3.) After impounding the document, the matter was referred to the Commissioner Stamp. The Commissioner Stamp invited a report from the Tehsildar in order to ascertain the correct position on the spot. The said report was submitted on 17.6.2010 wherein it was reported that a "Dharmakanta" (the weights) in the Krishna Dharamkanta was found on the spot, licence of which was issued on 14.9.2006. It was further reported that the land in question was being used for 'abadi' purposes and the adjoining area was 'abadi'. In view of the apparent discrepancy in the report of Tehsilar and Sub Registrar, it appears that on the objection raised by the petitioner, a fresh inspection was directed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 13.8.2010. However, no such report was submitted nor the Assistant Commissioner waited for the said report rather placing reliance upon the report of the Sub Registrar and Tehsildar, he opined that the plot in question was commercial in nature on the date of execution of the sale deed.