Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1535 (ALL)

Panchsheel Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P.

2018-07-11

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2010, passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad in Stamp Case No.226/2009-10 as well as order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meeut in Appeal No.42/2010-11. 3. A sale-deed dated 19.07.2008 executed for plot nos. 808, 809 and 814 ( total area 5903.33 Sq.Meters) was submitted for registration by the petitioner and the market value of the said property was calculated as Rs.8,014/- per sq. meter and requisite stamp duty was paid on the same in accordance with the aforesaid assessment. However, it appears that a spot inspection was done by the Collector, Ghaziabad and report dated 14.08.2009 was submitted by him stating that the market value of certain other plots purchased by the petitioner in the same area was fixed @ Rs.10,000/- per sq. meter and the stamp duty had been paid on the aforesaid valuation. As a consequence of the aforesaid report dated 14.08.2009, Stamp Case No.226 of 2009-10, under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was registered in the Court of Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) who, relying on the report dated 14.08.2009 held that the market value of plot nos. 808, 809 and 814 was Rs.10,000/- per sq. meter and the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty on the aforesaid market value. Consequently, the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), vide his order dated 14.10.2010 calculated the deficiency of stamp duty paid by the petitioner as Rs.2,01,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner. 4. The said order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Additional Collector was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, through Appeal No.42/2010-11 which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 9.02.2011 on the ground that market value of plots situated in the same area and which were the subject of certain other sale-deeds was fixed as Rs.10,000/- per sq. meter. The order dated 9.02.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. meter. The order dated 9.02.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. A perusal of the orders dated 14.10.2010 and 9.02.2011 shows that in the aforesaid orders, the details of plots, whose market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per sq.meter for payment of stamp duty have not been given. A perusal of the impugned orders also shows that no finding has been recorded by the Additional Collector or by the Additional Commissioner regarding the market value of plot nos.808, 809 and 814 and the Additional Collector has mechanically relied upon the report dated 14.08.2009 submitted by the Collector, Ghaziabad. The Additional Collector has not enquired into the matter as specified under Section 47-A(2)? of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and has also not himself determined the market value of the plots, which were subject of the sale-deed dated 19.07.2008. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that no reasons have been given by the concerned authority for assessing the market value of the plots @ Rs.10,000/- per sq.meter and the said orders reflect a total non application of mind by the concerned authorities. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meeut filed as Annexure nos.1 & 2 are legally not sustainable and are, hereby, set aside. 7. The writ petition is allowed. 8. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) Ghaziabad to decide and pass fresh order in Stamp Case No.226/2009-10 in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.