Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 982 (ALL)

RAJKALI DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-25

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the Collector under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as well as the order dated 5.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector. 3. The petitioner had purchased 533 sq. mtrs. of land from plot No. 372 and 483 sq. mtrs. of land from plot No. 376 by executing two sale deeds on 19.1.2008. It is stated that the sale deeds were duly registered on 19.11.2008 itself by the Sub-Registrar. But on the very next day, i.e., 20.11.2008, he furnished a report regarding deficiency in stamp duty in respect of the same property. It is alleged that upon the report dated 20.11.2008 notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47-A (3) of the Act and in response thereto the petitioner filed objection on 20.2.2009. The matter was thereafter considered by the Collector who determined the deficiency in the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,67,860/- and also imposed Rs. 2000/- as penalty along with 1.5% interest on the amount till its payment. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner under Section 56 (1-A) of the Act and the Commissioner also on the same terms, affirmed the order of the Collector. Hence this petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the registration of the sale deeds the concerned officer reported the deficiency on the very next day and on his report the Collector proceeded to determine the deficiency without any further consideration by himself regarding the fair market value of the property in question. No further report was called and merely on the report dated 20.11.2008 deficiency has been determined. 5. No further report was called and merely on the report dated 20.11.2008 deficiency has been determined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that such procedure is per se illegal as Section 47-A (3) of the Act itself very specifically provides that after receiving any report from any authority or taking cognizance suo motu the Collector has to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter has to determine the fair market value of the property in question himself and if necessary, spot inspection may also be made and if any such spot inspection is required to be made then the petitioner is also to be associated in that spot inspection. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such exercise has not been undertaken by the Collector and he merely proceeded on the ex parte report dated 20.12.2008 and has determined the deficiency in the stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 (2) AWC 1087, wherein it has been categorically held that the market value has to be determined by the Collector on the same principle as is done for the purpose of determination of compensation to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act. Nowhere from the order of the Collector as well as the Commissioner it is reflected that any such determination has been done to assess the fair market value of the property in question. 6. There is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the procedure prescribed by law and as enumerated by various decisions of this Court the Collector cannot shrink away from the duty cast upon him for determining the fair market value. The determination of fair market value as stated above should be the same as required for determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 8.5.2009 and 5.9.2009 (Annexures-2 and 5 respectively) cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.5.2009 and 5.9.2009 are hereby quashed. The determination of fair market value as stated above should be the same as required for determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 8.5.2009 and 5.9.2009 (Annexures-2 and 5 respectively) cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.5.2009 and 5.9.2009 are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the competent authority will re-determine the fair market value as observed above and as required by this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra), and in pursuance thereof if any spot inspection is required to be made, the petitioner shall also be given due notice for the same and the authority thereafter, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law . 8. There shall be no order as to costs. ————