(1.) PETITIONER is Managing Director of M/s. Sameera Homes Pvt. Ltd. He entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of Acs. 8. 12 1/2 guntas in Survey Nos. 646/a, 646/aa, 646/e and 646/ee situated at Rajapuram Village, Balanagar Mandal in Mahabubnagar District, from Donti Atchutha Reddy under agreement of sale dated 20. 5. 2006 for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,60,000.00 per acre. Agreement of sale was entered into by and between petitioner and his vendor on a Non-Judicial Stamp (NJS) paper of Rs. 100/ -. When some of the villagers expressed doubt about stamp duty paid, petitioner approached respondent for determination of stamp duty. He also submitted original agreement of sale for consideration. The Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar District, issued impugned notice/order dated 17. 3. 2008 directing petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 3,78,950.00 and penalty at ten times of stamp duty in a sum of Rs. 37,89,500 (in total Rs. 41,68,450.00) within fifteen days, for impounding and validating document. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said order and for consequential direction to respondent to return document with endorsement as required under Section 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act, for brevity ).
(2.) THIS Court while issuing notice before admission passed interim orders of stay. Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed W. V. M. P. No. 1476 of 2008 for vacating interim order. A counter-affidavit is filed along with said application. As a short question is raised, the writ petition itself is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader made their submissions. Petitioner also relies on Government of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Amir, AIR 1961 SC 787, in support of contention that when stamp duty is determined under Section 31 of Stamp Act, penalty cannot be imposed.