SMT. NEERU YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sale-deed dated 11.2.2005 regarding a plot was executed in favour of the petitioner and requisite stamp duty was paid on the same after computing it at the residential rates fixed by the Collector. However, a report dated 21.2.2006 was submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, District-Etawah (hereinafter referred to as, 'Deputy District Magistrate') stating that the plot was situated in a commercial area and the stamp duty had to be paid on the same after determining the market value of the plot on the aforesaid basis. On the said report dated 21.2.2006, Case No. 32/2005-06 under Sec. 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the Court of Collector (Stamp), District-Etawah, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Collector') and in the said case show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed her reply denying the correctness of the report of the Deputy District Magistrate and prayed that the Collector may get the plot inspected again by some other competent officer. On the application of the petitioner, the Collector got the plot inspected by the City Magistrate, Etawah, who submitted his report dated

(2.) It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the area in which the plot was situated was not within the commercial area in the notification issued by the Collector which has been annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, and therefore, the market value of the property and the requisite stamp duty could not be determined at rates fixed for commercial plots. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the report submitted by the City Magistrate did not depict the correct location of the plot, and therefore, the Collector had erred in law in relying on the same. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the penalty of Rs. 82,632.00 has been imposed on the petitioner without recording any finding that there was any attempt by the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty and for the aforesaid reason also the order 30.11.2006 passed by the Collector so far as it imposes penalty on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It has been argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated

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