Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2151 (ALL)

Kallu Prasad v. State of U. P.

2017-09-12

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.01.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 28.06.2004 passed by respondent no. 3 arising out of proceedings under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899). 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a piece of residential land with some construction thereon through a registered sale deed dated 22/23.12.2003 and paid stamp duty at Rs. 44,200/- on a valuation of the property at Rs. 4,41,000/-. However, on an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. Prior to that a spot inspection was conducted by the Sub-Registrar on 16.03.2004 within four and half months from the date of sale deed of the property and it was found that Jhagdu and Mohan were occupying the premises as tenant and in which commercial activity of silk colouring was going on. Therefore, treating the property in question to be commercial and applying commercial rates, the market value of the property was determined at Rs. 19,52,380/- on which stamp duty payable was determined at Rs. 1,95,300/- and since the petitioner had already paid Rs. 44,200/- therefore, the deficiency of stamp duty was calculated at Rs. 1,51,100/- plus Rs. 900/- by way of penalty, total Rs. 1,52,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Collector Stamp dated 28.06.2004, the petitioner preferred a stamp appeal being Appeal No. 77 of 2004, which has also been dismissed by Commissioner Varanasi Division by his order dated 31.01.2006 upholding the findings recorded by the Collector Stamp. Against the appellate order, the petitioner has filed a restoration application, which has also been rejected by order dated 21.03.2006. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises in question was being used for residential purposes and, therefore, treating the property to be residential its market value was determined as applicable to residential area and stamp duty was paid accordingly and it is wrong to say that there was any business or commercial activity was going on the said plot. It has also been submitted that the Collector Stamp issued notices under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 on the basis of spot inspection conducted by himself. It has also been submitted that after the proceedings were initiated, the Deputy Commissioner Stamp/Collector Stamp also conducted spot inspection on 26.06.2004 on the specific request of the petitioner as has been noted in his order. 6. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in the case of Fazlurrahman v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (4) ADJ 310 . 7. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case, the Sub-Registrar has conducted spot inspection on 16.03.2004, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in which he has clearly stated that it was found that Jhagdu and Mohan were occupying the premises as tenants and in which commercial activity of silk colouring was going on. It is noted that the spot inspection was conducted by the Sub-Registrar on 16.03.2004 i.e. within four and half months of the sale deed and therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the Sub-Registrar that there were tenants in the premises in question carrying on commercial activities. 8. In this view of the matter and on the facts of the case and the specific findings recorded that in the premises in question commercial activity was going on, in my opinion, the stamp authorities have correctly determined the value of the property at commercial rates and determined deficiency of stamp duty thereon. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 10. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.