KISHAN PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. Present petition has been filed quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2008 passed by opposite party no.2 in Stamp Appeal No.26 of 2007-2008 and judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed by opposite party no.3 in Stamp Case No.217 of 2007-2008.

(2.) The proceedings under Sec. 33 of the Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner in regard to the one agreement to sell which was recovered in the electricity department during inspection and was referred for assessment of the deficiency of the stamp duty. Objection was invited from the petitioner. In his objection he admitted the position that an agreement to sell was executed, however, he could not purchase the property, therefore, the agreement to sell has become non-existent as no right was conferred to the petitioner. It was further asserted in the objection that since the petitioner could not get the sale deed executed he remained as a tenant on month to months basis and for this reason annexing the aforesaid agreement he has taken the electricity connection, as the agreement to sell was never put into execution. After considering the objection of the petitioner by impugned order dated 15.02.2008 deficiency of stamp to the tune of Rs. 44,200.00 was found and penalty of Rs. 1,76,800.00 was imposed and total sum of Rs. 22,1000.00 was levied with the interest of 1.5 per cent per month. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the same on the ground that there is no basis for believing the agreement to sell since the petitioner is continuing as tenant on the property in question, therefore, his possession on the basis of agreement could not have been considered and the order of assessment of deficiency of stamp and penalty interest thereon is wholly illegal. The Additional Collector as well as the appellate authority both found that the execution of agreement to sell is admitted to the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is perfectly justified.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is nowhere indicated on what basis the stamp duty has been assessed. It was further submitted that in the present case there is nothing to indicate that the instrument in question was impounded which is necessary under Sec. 36 of Indian Stamp Act and without impounding the instrument no such proceedings placing paragraph-16 of the writ petition would not have been initiated.