Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1370 (MP)

Trilok Chand Mittal v. Board of Revenue

2009-12-14

S.K.GANGELE

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) Heard. ( 2. ) The petitioner have filed this petition against the order Annexure-P/1, dated 5/1/2007, passed by the Board of Revenue, Annexure-P/2, dated 27/4/2005, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior and the order Annexure-P/3, dated 20/11/2000, passed by the Collector Stamps. ( 3. ) The petitioners purchased a house in a consideration of Rs. 90,000.00 vide a registered instrument sale-deed, dated 11/9/1995. The Deputy Registrar, Registration after registering the documents submitted to the Collector of Stamps that the instrument was undervalued and the authority fixed the value of the property of Rs. 2,28,500.00. The Collector of Stamp initiated proceedings under the provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 and thereafter vide order dated 20/11/2000, fixed the value of the property of Rs. 3,70,546/-and accordingly directed the petitioners to pay the deficit Stamp fees of Rs. 37,31II- including registration fee. Against aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, that appeal has been dismissed by the authority as the respondent No. 3 could not be served by the petitioners in spite of giving 15 opportunities. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, that has also been dismissed. ( 4. ) From the perusal of the order, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 was the earlier owner of the property from whom the petitioners purchased the property. She was not at all an interested party because the Collector of Stamps has levied the Stamp Duty on the recommendation of the Deputy Registrar, Registration. In such circumstances, the non-service of respondent No. 3 was immaterial, hence, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to pass an order on merits of the case. In such circumstances, the petition of the petitioners is disposed of with the following directions:- i) That, the impugned orders Annexure-P/1, dated 5.1.2007 and Annexure-P/2, dated 27.4.2005 are hereby quashed. ii) The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner for passing the order on merits. iii) It is hereby clarified that the appellate authority may decided the appeal on merits in spite of non-service of respondent No. 3. iv) The petitioners are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 27th December, 2009. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.