Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3063 (ALL)

Raj Bahadur and Others v. State of U. P.

2010-10-01

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2010
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.—Heard Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.R. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties and perused the records.2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by opposite party no.3/Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Balrampur imposing the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- plus registration fee of Rs.4900/- along with penalty of Rs.20,000/- with interest of 1.5% per month from the date of execution of sale-deed i.e. since 14.1.2008 till the date of actual payment. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed in Appeal No.71, filed under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act, by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda dated 31.3.2009, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 7.8.2008 has been rejected.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had purchased a land measuring area 1.77 acre (0.7170 hectare), situate in Village Tengnahawa, Pergana and Tehsil Tulsipur, District Balrampur and the sale-deed was executed by the vendor and the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 21.10.2003. During the pendency of the mutation proceedings, the petitioners came to know that in the registered sale-deed the Gata No.682 has wrongly been described as Gata No.622, as the correct gata number is 682, therefore, they prepared a Titimba-deed (Correction-deed) on 8.1.2008 for correction of mistake in the original sale-deed dated 21.10.2003.4. The Sub-Registrar instead of making the correction in the original sale-deed sent a report dated 14.2.2008 to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Balrampur treating the said correction-deed as a new sale-deed and ordered for taking appropriate action for recovery of deficiency in the stamp duty under Sections 33/38 of the Stamp Act. On the aforesaid report the opposite party no.3 initiated the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and issued notices to the petitioners. Thereafter the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 was passed imposing the deficiency of the stamp duty and registration fee as well as the penalty along with interest. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, however, the same was also rejected by order dated 31.3.2009.5. Thereafter the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 was passed imposing the deficiency of the stamp duty and registration fee as well as the penalty along with interest. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, however, the same was also rejected by order dated 31.3.2009.5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders, mainly, on the ground that the opposite party no.3 has passed the order dated 7.8.2008 without proper application of mind in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, as the petitioners have sought the corrections with respect to the plot number only and there were no new conditions imposed in the correction-deed. However, the Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Balrampur, merely on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar held that the correction-deed is a new deed and therefore, there is a deficiency in the stamp duty.6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the averments made in paragraphs no.16 and 17 of the writ petition, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that in the correction-deed the description of the boundaries and the particulars of the parties were the same as mentioned in the original sale-deed dated 21.10.2003 and only the plot number has been changed. It is also mentioned that the area of the land in question was also the same.7. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties with respect to the averments made in paragraphs no.16 and 17 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the contents of paragraphs no.16 and 17 of the writ petition needs no comment.8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as such it is the admitted case that in the correction-deed the change was only with respect to the gata number and rest of the contents of the sale-deed were the same.9. The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit submits that in view of Schedule 1-B, Article 34-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the correction-deed shall be treated as a new deed and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties. The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit submits that in view of Schedule 1-B, Article 34-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the correction-deed shall be treated as a new deed and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties. However, the learned Standing Counsel has very candidly accepted that in the correction-deed there is no change except the gata number of the land in question with respect to which the sale-deed was registered on 21.10.2003.10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the correction-deed dated 8.1.2008 can not be treated to be a new deed, as the vendor and the vendee to the deed are the same, as mentioned in the sale-deed dated 21.10.2003 as well as the description of the property and the area is also the same but the gata number, which was wrongly mentioned as Gata No.622 instead of Gata No.682, which was to be corrected.11. On the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.8.2008 passed by Stamp Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Balrampur/opposite party no.3 in Case No.905, under Section 47-A(111) of the Stamp Act and the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda/opposite party no.2 in Appeal No.71, under Section 56(1-A) of the Stamp Act, are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside._____________