KANTA BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The specific case of the petitioner is that the plot taken by the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan from NOIDA Authorities was a vacant plot and he also acquired the same plot from the respondent no.4 in a vacant condition and at that time there was no construction on the said plot. The case of the petitioner further is that after he purchased the lease hold rights of the plot from the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan he constructed a liquor shop thereon. It is stated that proceedings under Section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899) were initiated against the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan in respect of the said transfer arising out of an audit objection raised by the Accountant General, U.P. The report of the Tehsildar, Dadri stated that the rent of the shop was Rs.2,500/- per month and therefore, the property should be valued according to the rent and premium of the lease. He accordingly valued the property at Rs.14,84,580/- and determined the stamp duty at Rs.1,48,500/- whereas Rs.73,520/- had already been paid as stamp duty.

(3.) We have perused the impugned order dated 21.01.2003. The order records that notices were issued to the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan but she never responded nor participated in the proceedings.