Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 565 (UTT)

UDDHVEER SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2006-10-09

B.S VERMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Per Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgement and orders dated 9.2.1994, 22.2.1995 passed by respondent No. 1 as well as 17.3.1997 passed by the respondent No.2 contained in (Annexure No. 3, 5 and 7 to this writ petition) respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by one Sri Bhagwan Singh on 24.11.1992. at the time of registration no objection was raised by the sub-registrar for deficiency of stamp duty. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the stamp duty was paid on the basis of market value as well as circle rate prevailing at that time and which was fixed by the Collector, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Subsequent to that an objection was raised by the audit team that the circle rate for paying the stamp duty was Rs. 1,98,000/- per bigha while the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per Nali and accordingly the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act was initiated on the basis of audit report. The Additional Collector vide order dated 9.2.2004, imposed the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 32,263 and penalty of Rs. 500/- to be recovered from the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was held by the Additional Collector Tehri Garhwal that the circle rate which was fixed by the Collector, Tehri Garhwal on Tapovan motor marg the same was Rs. 1,98,000/- per bigha from the center of the road up to 300 meter and that the land is situated beyond the distance of 300 meter and the stamp duty was paid on the sale deed as per circle rate. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to pay any amount alleged deficit stamp duty. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate was exparte against which the petitioner had filed a restoration application before the respondent No.1 but that was dismissed and no opportunity was given to adduce any evidence. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to pay any amount alleged deficit stamp duty. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate was exparte against which the petitioner had filed a restoration application before the respondent No.1 but that was dismissed and no opportunity was given to adduce any evidence. The revision was also filed against the order of the Additional Collector which was too dismissed. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no mention in the order that the land sold is within the 300 meter from the center of the road of Tapovan Marg. 8. It is a disputed fact whether the land sold is within 300 meter of Tapovan Marg or beyond that limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Registrar replied the audit note on 6.8.1993 wherein it was stated that the rate for paying the stamp duty was Rs. 6000/- per Nali. The learned counsel for the petitioner may raise this ground before the trial court and it is provided that the trial court shall decide the stamp case after verifying the fact on spot through some officer not below the rank of Tehsildar considering the issue as to whether the sold land is within 300 meter from Tapovan Marg or not. The learned Additional Collector, Tehri Garhwal is directed to decide the case afresh after hearing both the parties preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. 9. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.