Court No. - 46
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9907 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sayedunnisha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mir Sayed,Matiur Rehman Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has purchased 1/5 share of one Jahoor in plot no. 184 having area of 0.210 hectare, plot no. 332 having area of 0.620 hectare and plot no. 390 having area of 0.325 through registered sale deed dated 6.3.2013 on sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- on which he has paid stamp duty of Rs.35,600/-.
Thereafter, on a proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act registered as case no. 68/13-14 D2013155100550, the deficiency of Rs.1,16,050/- was determined by the respondent no. 2- Additional Collector/District Stamp Officer Mau. The respondent no. 2 by the order dated 29.3.2014 also imposed penalty of Rs.1,16,050/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision no. 13 M/C 20141500001047 before the Additional Commissioner Stamp, Azamgarh Division Azamgarh, which was allowed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 30.3.2015 and the matter was remanded to the respondent no. 2.
It appears that during the proceedings before the Collector, the State Government has introduced a scheme dated 4.11.2015 namely Swasthya Samadhan Yozana where it is provided that in case, the person against whom the deficiency and penalty has been determined, if he pays the deficiency of stamp duty and Rs.10 as token penalty, the matter shall be settled under the aforesaid scheme.
The petitioner submitted an application for settlement in the matter before respondent no. 2 on 26.2.2016. The respondent no. 2 by order dated 5.4.2019 has waived the penalty and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,16,050/- and Rs.10 towards penalty along with simple interest @ 1.5% chargeable on monthly basis.
Being aggrieved by imposition of interest by the respondent no. 2 by order dated 5.4.2019, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the para 3(3) of the Swasthya Samadhan Yojana, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 2 to decide his application within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of the application, and in the instant case more than three years have been taken by the respondent no. 2 in disposing of the petitioner's application for no fault of him. Thus, he submits that the imposition of interest by the respondent no. 2 is illegal and not sustainable as there was no fault of the petitioner for delay in disposal of the said application.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner should have deposited deficient stamp duty at the time of filing the application.
I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
Para 3(3) of the Swasthya Samadhan Yozana is extracted herein below:
“3- सटामप वादो के तविरत िनसतारण के िलए, उसमे िनिहत सटामप कमी की धनरािश को शीघाितशीघ पाप करने के िलए तथा जन-सामानय को अिधकािधक सुिवधा पदान करने के उदेशय से शासन दारा समयक िवचारोपरांत सटामप कमी के वादो की एक समाधान योजना लागू िकये जाने का िनणरय िलया गया है। उक योजना िनमनवत् िकयािनवत की जायेगीः
1. ...
2. ...
3. सबंिधत नयायालय के पीठासीन अिधकारी, ऐसे पाथरना- पत के पाप होते ही समबिनधत वाद मे एक पक के अनदर ितिथ िनयत करते हुए (आवशयकता होने पर पवर िनयत ितिथ को सशोिधत करते हुए) इसी अविध मे सदभरण आखया मे इिं गत सटामप कमी की धनरािश की पुिष हेतु आवशयक कायरवाही करगे।”
As per paragraph 3(3) of the scheme, the competent authority is supposed to take a decision within 15 days. In the present case, the application was filed by the petitioner on 26.2.2016 but no order of the competent authority was passed. The record do not suggest that any order was passed on the application of the petitioner determining the amount which petitioner is liable to be deposited.
It transpires from the record that the order of Collector dated 5.4.2019 is only order which has been passed by the respondent no. 2 in case no. 1381 of 2015 (Computerized Case No. D20151551001381) determining the amount which the petitioner is liable to pay. As the authorities in paragraph 3(3) of the Scheme has failed to determine the liability of petitioner within the period prescribed in the paragraph 3(3) of the Scheme in the present case, therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted with for delay in payment of the stamp duty and as such the imposition of 1.5% simple interest chargeable on monthly basis by the respondent no. 2 in order dated 5.4.2019 is not justified.
Consequently, the order dated 5.4.2019 is set-aside to the extent it imposes 1.5% simple interest chargeable on monthly basis on the amount of deficient stamp duty. The petitioner is directed to deposit the stamp duty of Rs.1,16,050/- and Rs. 10 as penalty within a period of one month from today. In case the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the deficient stamp duty shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of the judgment of this Court.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ishan