Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1305 (ALL)

Leela Devi Shah v. State of U. P.

2013-05-02

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties. 2. In respect of the instrument to sell No.7821 of 2006 pertaining to house No.572 having an area of 193.146 sq. meter situate in Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'Act') were initiated on the basis of the report of Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan dated 27.10.2006. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) vide order dated 19.10.2007 determined the deficiency in stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,11,900/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.45,000/-. Both the amount were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.2.2008. 3. Petitioner applied for recall of the order dated 19.10.2007 on the ground that it was passed behind her back. The application was rejected and so is the appeal against the same. Therefore, all the above orders have been impugned in this writ petition. 4. In short, petitioner is aggrieved basically by the order determining deficiency in stamp duty and the appellate order thereto upholding the same. 5. The deficiency in stamp duty has been determined on the basis of the report of the Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan dated 27.10.2006 without taking into aid of any other independent evidence for the purposes of determining market value of the property and consequently deficiency in stamp duty. The burden to prove that the market value of the property has not correctly been disclosed in the instrument is on the department who asserts that there is deficiency in stamp duty. 6. In the absence of any material to prove that the market value disclosed in the instrument is incorrect or on the lower side, the authorities below could not have determined the market value on the basis of the report of Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan. It has been settled by various decisions of this Court that the report of the Registrar/Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan is only for the purposes of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act and cannot be read as evidence. 7. It has been settled by various decisions of this Court that the report of the Registrar/Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan is only for the purposes of initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act and cannot be read as evidence. 7. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to prove that the market value of the property in question has not correctly been shown, the authorities below have manifestly erred in law in simply relying upon the aforesaid report of the Up Mahanirikshak Nibandhan and determining the market value of the property in question. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.10.2007 and 29.2.2008 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.