Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62549 of 2006 Petitioner :- Akhil Rastogi Respondent :- Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.N. Singh,Vivek Dhaka Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief for Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 22.08.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut Division, Meerut arising out of proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899).
Briefly stated the facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner purchased House No. L 404 having an area of 63.90 square meters from its owner through a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2004 and paid stamp duty as per the relevant circle rate amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. The Collector (Stamp) by his order dated 29.12.2004 held that the petitioner has not submitted any objection in reply and, therefore, he proceeded to determine the market value of the property on commercial rates and held the same to be Rs. 7,99,000/- and the stamp duty was calculated at Rs. 79,900/- and after deducting Rs. 25,000/-, already paid by the petitioner, the deficiency of stamp duty as calculated at Rs. 54,900/- and penalty of Rs. 11042/- has also been imposed with interest at 1.5% per month amounting to Rs. 9058/- total Rs. 75,000/-.
Aggrieved by the order of Collector dated 29.12.2004, the petitioner preferred stamp appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by order 22.08.2006.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector in his order has placed reliance upon the report of Sub-Registrar and come to a finding that in the premises in dispute there was a gas burner with lamp in which work of nickle polishing was going on and assumed the same to be commercial premises. He further submits that during the proceedings before the Collector (Stamp), an order was passed on 21.09.2004 calling for a report of the Tehsildar but thereafter there is no order showing that any such report was submitted by the Tehsildar. The relevant order sheet has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which does not show that the report of the Tehsildar was received and taken on record by the Collector (Stamp). Even in his memo of appeal, Annexure-5 to the writ petition in paragraph nos. 6 & 7, the petitioner has taken a specific ground that the report of Tehsildar was called for but without waiting for the same, the Collector (Stamp) proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.12.2004 and, therefore, there was absolutely no material before the Collector (Stamp) other than the report of Sub-Registrar that the premises was not residential but commercial.
The Appellate authority has also, in his order, nowhere taken note of the specific ground nos. 6 and 7 taken by the petitioner with regard to non availability of the report of Tehsildar and proceeded to dismiss the appeal by his order dated 22.08.2006.
This Court had directed the standing counsel to produce the original record in order to show as to whether there was any report of the Tehsildar on record but the original record, which have been produced before this Court, do not show any report of the Tehslidar as placed on record to show that the order dated 29.12.2004 was passed by the Collector (Stamp) without even waiting for the Tehsildar to submit his report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha son of Sri Ram Ratan Vs. State of U.P. through Collector and Prashant Shukla son of Sri Sushil Chand Shukla 2005(2) AWC 1087 (All), wherein this court held that an ex parte inspection report may be relevant for initiation of proceeding under Section 47A of Act, 1899. However for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Rules 1997. In this regard paragraph 25 of the judgement reads as under:
"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex- parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997.
Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."
In the present case, though the report of the Tehsildar was called for by the Collector (Stamp) after initiation of the stamp proceedings but without waiting for the report he proceeded to adjudicate the stamp dispute and the impugned order was passed on 29.12.2004.
The sale deed of the property in dispute was executed on 21.02.2004; more than 14 years have already passed and, therefore, in my opinion no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find the impugned orders dated 22.08.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut Division, Meerut are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and are accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut Division, Meerut to re-examine the matter in the light of the observations made above and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In case any amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty under the interim orders of this court, the same shall be refunded to him by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 S.K.