BALRAJ SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint dated 12.06.2014 was filed by one Salim Maliq before the Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue), District Ghaziabad stating that Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan and Akhilesh Singh Chauhan had executed an agreement to sale dated 02.03.2013 in favour of the petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs. 10 lakh. It was further stated in the said complaint that stamp duty was not paid on the agreement to sale thereby causing loss to the public revenue. Along with aforesaid complaint dated 12.06.2014 a photocopy of the alleged agreement to sale executed in favour of the petitioner was also annexed. On the said complaint dated 12.06.2014, the Assistant Inspector General Registration, District Ghaziabad submitted his report dated 01.08.2014 to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Ghaziabad stating that the agreement to sale was without transfer of possession and, therefore, was liable to be charged under Art. 5(b-i) of Schedule 1-B of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899'). In his report dated 01.08.2014, the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Ghaziabad also recommended that proceedings be instituted under Sections 33/40 of the Act, 1899 to impound the original document. On the aforesaid report of the Assistant Inspector General Registration, District Ghaziabad, Case No. 3181 of 2014 was registered in the court of Additional Collector (City), District Ghaziabad, under Sec. 33 of the Act, 1899 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to produce the original copy of the alleged agreement to sale dated 02.03.2013 and to also pay the deficiency in stamp duty on the said document. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and denied his signatures on the alleged agreement to sale and stated that he did not know Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan and Akhilesh Singh Chauhan and had never entered into any such agreement with the aforesaid persons. However, respondent No. 2 vide his judgement and order dated 05.11.2014 held that stamp duty of Rs. 2 lakh was liable to be paid on the aforesaid agreement to sale and along with the aforesaid amount, also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on the petitioner. In his order dated 05.11.2014, respondent No.2 also directed that the aforesaid amount be recovered from the petitioner along with an interest calculated @ 1.5% per month. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed Revision No. 07 of 2014/2015 before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, District Meerut i.e. respondent No. 1, who vide his order dated 31.03.2015, dismissed the aforesaid revision. The orders dated 05.11.2014 and 31.03.2015 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of order dated 05.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2 shows that the said order holding that the agreement to sale was liable to be charged under Art. 5(b-i) and the petitioner, as the vendee in the said agreement, was liable to pay stamp duty on the same has been passed merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any affidavit in support of his reply stating that the petitioner had not executed the agreement to sale and the said document did not contain the signature of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply of the petitioner also shows that he had denied entering into any agreement with Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan and Akhilesh Singh Chauhan and had also denied his signatures as visible on the photocopy of the documents. In the circumstances, it was incumbent on respondent No. 2 to verify whether the signatures visible on the photocopy of alleged agreement to sale were actually the signatures of the petitioner after comparing it with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. It was further incumbent on respondent No.2 to verify as to whether any document as stated by the complainant was actually executed by Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan and Akhilesh Singh Chauhan and the petitioner had entered into any such agreement with the aforesaid persons. To verify the aforesaid fact, the Collector was at liberty to collect reliable evidence and in the process also to summon Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan and Akhilesh Singh Chauhan. The Collector could have also summoned the complainant to disclose the source of his information. The aforesaid was necessary to ascertain the genuineness of the photocopy and also to inquire into the existence of the original. A reading of the order dated 05.11.2014 shows that no such steps were taken by the respondent No. 2 while holding the petitioner to be liable to pay stamp duty on the alleged agreement to sale dated 003.2013.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 holding the petitioner liable to pay stamp duty on the aforesaid documents is without any evidence and has been passed without properly conducting the proceedings in Case No. 3181 of 2014. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 05.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 31.02015 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, i.e., respondent No.1 are contrary to law and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (City), District Ghaziabad, i.e., respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders in Case No. 3181 of 2014, in accordance with law, after considering all the material available on record and in the light of observations made in the judgement within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.