ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 18. 10. 2004 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jhansi (respon dent No. 3) and 6. 1. 2005 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division (respondent No. 2), the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said orders whereby the respondents have determined the market value of the property in question pur chased by the petitioners to be Rs. 17,74,000 on which the deficiency of stamp to the tune of Rs. 1,11,900 has also been determined and the petitioners have been required to pay the same alongwith a penalty of Rs. 10,000 and 1. 5% monthly interest on the entire amount from the date of execution of the sale deed.

(2.) THE petitioners, Anil Kumar Jain and Satish Chandra Kohli have purchased land at plots No. 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663 and 1664 measuring, in total area 0. 887 hectare situated at Village Raksa, Tahsil and District Jhansi vide sale deed dated 12. 4. 2004 for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- though paid stamp duty at thrice the circle rate determined by the Collector. THE Sub-Registrar before whom the document was executed referred it under Section 47-Aof the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") observing that the correct market value has not been shown in the document. A notice was issued by respondent No. 3 on 10. 5. 2004 which was replied by the petitioners on 29. 5. 2004. THE respondent No. 3 passed order on 18. 10. 2004 observing that the land is appurtenant to Abadi and has immediate potential for residential user and, therefore, is liable to be stamped at the rate prescribed for residential land in the area and, therefore, required the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,11,900 towards deficiency of stamp duty alongwith penalty of Rs. 10,000 and interest at the rate of 1. 5% monthly from the date of execution of the document. THE petitioners preferred revision under Section 56 but the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6. 1. 2005.

(3.) I have heard Sri Narendra Mohan assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, Advocates for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record as well as the various authorities cited at the Bar in support of rival submissions.