SMT. HEERAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sale deed dated 23.6.2012 regarding Plot Nos. 336 and 339 was executed in favour of the petitioner on which stamp duty was paid without disclosing that the plots were adjacent to Chakmarg and a public road which was linked to the main road. Subsequently, the Sub-Registrar submitted his report dated 2.1.2013 reporting the aforesaid situation of the plots and on the said report Case No. 77 of 2013 under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered before the Additional District Magistrate (FinanceRevenue), District Jaunpur i.e. respondent no. 3. In the aforesaid case, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was received by her son. However, no objections were filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and subsequently the Additional District Magistrate got the plots inspected by the Tehsildar who also submitted a report confirming the report of the Sub-Registrar i.e. the plots were adjacent to road. It was stated in the report that no constructions existed on the plots and the plots were being used for agricultural purposes. The respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 26.6.2013 computed the stamp duty payable on the sale deed by applying the rate applicable on agricultural plots adjacent to road and consequently held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 80,200.00 in payment of stamp duty by the petitioner. In his aforesaid order, respondent no. 3 also held that as the location of the plots was not correctly disclosed by the petitioner, therefore, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty and thus also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 on the petitioner and directed that the aforesaid amount be recovered along with an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month from the petitioner. Against the order dated 26.6.2013 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed a revision under Sec. 56 of the Act, 1899 before the Additional Commissioner, Ist, Varanasi Division, Varanasi registering Revision No. C-2014140000420 of 2014. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Additional Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 15.9.2014. The orders dated 26.6.2013 and 15.9.2014 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records.

(3.) It is evident from the order dated 26.6.2013 passed by respondent no. 3 that the stamp duty payable on the sale deed dated 26.2012 has been computed by respondent no. 3 treating the plots as agricultural. It has been held by respondent no. 3 that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty in as much as the petitioner had paid stamp duty at the rate applicable on agricultural plots which were not adjacent to road and in the present case, the plots purchased by the petitioner were adjacent to road and therefore the stamp duty had to be calculated accordingly. Further, the proceedings in Case No. 77 of 2013 before the Collector, were ex-parte as the petitioner failed to appear before respondent no. 3 despite notices being served on him. A perusal of the memorandum of revision instituting Revision No. C-2014140000420 of 2014 shows that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 26.6.2013 on the ground that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before respondent no. In the writ petition also, the petitioner has failed to take any ground relating to his ignorance about the proceedings before respondent no. Further, as the petitioner had failed to appear before respondent no. 3 in Case No. 77 of 2013, therefore, no illegality was committed by respondent no. 3 in relying on the reports submitted by the Tehsildar as well as the SubRegistrar which were identical as no objection was filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid reports.