SAREMAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner sold his half portion of house to one Bal Chand and executed the sale-deed for Rs. 30,000/- and the remaining half portion was sold to one Janwant Raj for Rs. 35,000/-. The sale-deeds are at Annex. 1 and 2 respectively. They were got registered with respondent No. 3 Sub-Registrar, Jalore who asked the respondent No. 2 Collector, Jalore to take proceedings under Sec. 47-A of the Stamps Act against the petitioner because according to him, the value of the property sold for Rs. 35,000/- (Annex. 1) should have been Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, the Collector, Jalore issued notice to the petitioner and in response to that notice, it was pointed out by the petitioner that half portion of the house sold at Rs. 30,000/- had "Kachha" construction; whereas remaining half portion of the house sold at Rs. 35,000/- had "Pakka" construction and it was in good condition. In support of above, he filed his affidavit along with Sh. Janwant Raj. However, after hearing the parties, learned Collector passed the order dated 7-10-86 holding that property was under-valued at Rs. 30,000/- whereas it valued at Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, he passed the order of recovery of Rs. 1684/- as deficit stamp duty, Rs. 60/- as deficit registration fees, in all Rs. 1744/- and penalty at 10 times of this amount. Thus making the total Rs. 19,440/- to be recovered from the petitioner (Annex. 4). Aggrieved by that order (Annex. 4), petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was partly allowed by the Board of Revenue by reducing the penalty 10 times to 5 times and rest of the order passed by the Collector was maintained (Annex. 5). Thus, the orders Annex. 4 and 5 are challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) It appears that the Sub-Registrar (respondent No. 3), Jalore while recommending respondent No. 2 to initiate action against the petitioner under S. 47-A of the Stamps Act, had relied upon the Inspection Report of the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) who had stated that according to him, the value of the house should be Rs. 45,000/- and not Rs. 30,000/- because number of Dhabas were constructed on that portion of the property. Except this, there was nothing. As against that, the petitioner produced the cogent evidence by way of filing his own affidavit and affidavit of Janwant Raj stating that the other portion of property which was sold at Rs. 35,000/- was having "Pakka" construction whereas the property sold at Rs. 30,000/- was having "Kachha" construction.