Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10115 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Malti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 1.2.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act in Stamp Appeal No. 318 of 2016, Smt. Malti Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as order dated 31.7.2015 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 451/01/03/06-07 of 2002-2015 under Section 33 (A) read with 47(A) of Indian Stamp Act filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the order dated 1.2.2017 as well as order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 has also been made.
A perusal of the record clearly reflects that this is the third round of litigation. The petitioner purchased 2.7627 Hectares of land situated at Village Sarai Langar, Pargana Koda, Tehsil Bindki, district Fatehpur by a sale deed dated 12.2.1998. The proceedings under Section 33/47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner and a deficiency of Rs. 62,840/- was found and a penalty of Rs. 100/- was imposed vide order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Fatehpur. The said order was challenged by filing revision which was allowed vide order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the revisional authority and the matter was remanded back to consider the circle rate and quality of land for the purpose of assessing the deficiency of stamp. On remand vide order dated 29.11.2006 the earlier order dated 30.4.2002 was maintained. The petitioner again preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ C No. 67849 of 2010, Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 3.9.2014 and the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp)/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Fatehpur was directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the order of the revisional court dated 9.9.2002 in respect of Issue no. 2 i.e. quality of the land. On remand vide order dated 31.7.2015 the initial order of deficiency was maintained, however, this time the penalty was increased to Rs. 10,000/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% was also imposed with effect from 22.5.2002. The petitioner again preferred Stamp Appeal wherein the order dated 4.2.2016 was passed and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) to decide the same in the light of the Government Order dated 4.11.2015. Since there was some typing mistake as the date of order dated 31.7.2015 was incorrectly typed as 11.9.2014, the Assistant Commissioner refused to comply with the order of the Commissioner. The petitioner for this reason filed a recall application dated 13.7.2016 for recalling the order dated 4.2.2016 and prayed for deciding the case on merits. By the impugned order dated 1.2.2017, the order dated 31.7.2015 was modified to the extent of reducing the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 100/- as imposed by the original order dated 30.4.2002.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as directed by the Commissioner and this Court the valuation was never considered on the basis of the quality of land/soil in question as provided in the circle rate (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). He submits that it is the third round of litigation and even the application of the petitioner for consideration of his case under "Samadhan Yojna" was also not considered on the superficial technical ground that the date of the order of the Collector has been incorrectly mentioned as 11.9.2014 and his submission is that for this mistake the petitioner was not responsible; as it is due to the constant harassment which he is facing litigation for the last more than 15 years, the petitioner submitted that his case may be decided on merits, which has been incorrectly dismissed.
Per-contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and submitted that once the circle rate has been fixed for the agricultural land, there is no reason to interfere in the same and the valuation on the basis of quality of land is not available in this case.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record, I find that for availing the benefit of "Samadhan Yojna" the petitioner moved an application on which the matter was referred back to the Assistant Collector who refused to consider the application under "Samadhan Yojna" on the ground that there is typing mistake in the order of the appellate authority dated 4.2.2016. On perusal of the aforesaid order I find that in first paragraph the correct dated 31.7.2015 has been mentioned whereas in the second paragraph there appears to be typing mistake and this date has been mentioned as 11.9.2014. Clearly non-consideration of the application of the petitioner under "Samadhan Yojna" appears to be malafide in nature. The same was liable to be considered.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in place of remanding back the matter for the purpose of consideration of his application under "Samadhan Yojna", the petitioner is willing to comply with the initial order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner which would lead to the same result even if his case on merits for reducing the deficiency in stamp on the basis of quality of land is considered.
Under such circumstances, this Court find that no purpose would be served by remanding back the matter to the Assistant Collector for the purpose of consideration of the application of the petitioner moved under "Samadhan Yojna" once the petitioner agrees to comply with the initial order dated 30.4.2002.
Under such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside, however, the initial order dated 30.4.2002 is maintained. The provision for payment of simple interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was added by inserting Section 4 (A) by U.P. Act 38 of 2001 (with effect from 20.5.2002) would not be applicable which was not effective on the date of the order dated 30.4.2002. Accordingly, the petitioner would be liable to pay stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 62,840/- with penalty of Rs. 100/- only and he shall, however, not be liable to pay any interest.
This writ petition stands partly allowed. The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards payment of stamp duty. In case there is any shortfall, the balance amount, if any, shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from today.
No costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 p.s.