ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Bipin Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as the appellate order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by which deficiency of stamp duty has been imposed on the sale-deed executed by the petitioner. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner purchased agricultural land, being Khata No. 69, plot Nos. 258 and 259 measuring .649 and .331 acres respectively, by means of a registered sale-deed dated 8.5.1997. The petitioner paid stamp duty as per the rates fixed by the District Magistrate applicable for that area for agricultural land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Sub-Registrar by a letter dated 15.5.1998, reported to the District Magistrate about the deficiency of the stamp duty on the sale-deed on the ground that the land was abutting a road, namely, Rampur-Nogoh Road and therefore, appropriate stamp duty was required to be paid. On the basis of this report, a notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner to show cause why a deficiency of stamp duty along with the penalty, if any, should not be imposed upon the petitioner. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, by an order dated 15.10.2001, imposed Rs. 2,99,801 as deficiency of stamp duty and another sum of Rs. 2,980 towards deficiency of registration fee. The petitioner, filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.4.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN Smt. Anasuya Singh v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another, 2008 (104) RD 725, the Court held that an agricultural land situate at a roadside in a semi-urban area could not be treated as commercial or residential unless that area was declared as a commercial or a residential area by the authorities. IN Kunj Behari v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 750, a similar view was taken by the Court.