MAHENDRA KHATEEK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior whereby the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, has confirmed the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, which arose out of the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Collector of Stamp, Sagar, whereby the Collector of Stamp, Sagar, in a proceeding referred to him by the Civil Judge, Class I, Sagar after impounding the document, which is an agreement to sell the property has assessed the market value of the property to be Rs.1,41, 90,000/- and fixed the stamp duty to be Rs.7,09,500/- and a penalty of Rs.35,42,500 has also been imposed. The petitioner has no grievance so far as the stamp duty is concerned but has challenged the imposition of penalty only.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration of sale deed as null and void and also for permanent injunction against one Jagmohan Midha and others. In the aforesaid suit, on an application filed by the defendant, learned Seventh Civil Judge, Class I, Sagar vide order dated 22.12.2016 sent the sale agreement to the Collector of Stamps under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act after impounding the same. Vide order dated 28.06.2017 the Collector of Stamps, Sagar has imposed deficit stamp duty of Rs.7,08,500/- and a penalty of Rs.35,42,500/- has also been imposed. Thus, the petitioners are directed to deposit total amount of Rs.42,51,000/-. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, in an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar vide order dated 30.01.2018 as not maintainable. Finally when the said order of Collector was again challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision vide order dated 17.09.2018 confirming the order passed by the authority below.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that the Board of Revenue has not dealt with the matter in accordance with law as the order itself is cryptic in nature and is liable to be set aside on this ground only.