Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2016 (ALL)

Anju Chahal v. State of U. P.

2018-09-18

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Tarun Gaur, Advocate holding brief of Shri Manish Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. A sale deed dated 12.12.2003, (area 810 sqr.meter) was executed in favour of the petitioners for a consideration amount of Rs.37,000/-and stamp duty of Rs.2960/-was paid on the same showing that the property was an agricultural plot. However, the Sub Registrar submitted his report dated 15.12.2003 wherein he reported that the plot was adjacent to a road and a power house as well as residential plots existed adjacent to the property purchased by the petitioners and therefore, the market value of the property and the stamp duty liable to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.12.2003 were to be computed at the rate fixed for residential plots. On the aforesaid report dated 15.12.2003, Case No. V-472 of 2003-04 was registered in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Meerut i.e respondent no. 3 wherein a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their reply stating that the plot was an agricultural plot and was so recorded in the revenue records and therefore, the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.12.2003 had to be computed at the rate fixed for agricultural plots. However, the respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 27.8.2004 held that the market value of the property as well as the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.12.2003 was to be computed on the rates fixed for residential plots and therefore, held that there was a deficiency of Rs.13,280/-in payment of stamp duty. By his aforesaid order, the respondent no. 3 directed that the deficiency amount along with a penalty of Rs.13,280/-and the registration amount of Rs.3310/-(total amount of Rs.29,870/-) be recovered from the petitioners with an interest calculated @ 1.5% per month. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3, the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner(Meerut) i.e respondent no.2 which was numbered as Appeal No.84/2003-04 and was dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 13.11.2006. 4. The orders dated 27.8.2004 passed by respondent no. 3 and 13.11.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 have been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. 2 vide his order dated 13.11.2006. 4. The orders dated 27.8.2004 passed by respondent no. 3 and 13.11.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 have been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as the records annexed with the writ petition show that in their reply as well as in their appeal, the petitioners have merely stated that the plot purchased by them was an agricultural plot and was so recorded in the revenue records and had therefore, contended that the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.12.2003 was to be computed at the rate fixed for agricultural plots. However, before the respondent nos. 2 & 3, the petitioner did not deny that a power house and residential plots existed adjacent to the plot purchased by the petitioners and in the neighbourhood of the property purchased by the petitioners. The fact that abadi existed in the neighbourhood of the property purchased by the petitioners was also evident from the revenue records relating to plot no.24 which was filed by the revenue and the aforesaid revenue records also proved that a power house was adjacent to the plot purchased by the petitioners. 6. In view of the aforesaid, no illegality has been committed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 in holding that the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed dated 12.12.2003 was to be computed at the rate fixed for residential plots and therefore, there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed. The writ petition challenging the orders dated 27.8.2004 and 13.11.2006 so far they relate to deficiency in payment of stamp duty has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, a reading of the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by respondent no. 3 shows that in his aforesaid order no finding has been recorded by respondent no. 3 that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to evade payment of stamp duty. In absence of any such finding, the respondent no. 3 could not have imposed penalty on the petitioners and therefore, the orders dated 27.8.2004 and 13.11.2006 passed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 so far as they impose a penalty of Rs.13,280/-on the petitioners are contrary to law and are hereby set aside. h8. In absence of any such finding, the respondent no. 3 could not have imposed penalty on the petitioners and therefore, the orders dated 27.8.2004 and 13.11.2006 passed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 so far as they impose a penalty of Rs.13,280/-on the petitioners are contrary to law and are hereby set aside. h8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.