The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 56(1A) and also the order passed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and recovery proceedings initiated therefrom.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that he had purchased Plot Nos.18/250 and 18/249 on 14.08.2006. It is alleged that earlier notices were issued on the erstwhile owner of the property under Section 263 of the Municipalities Act No.16 of 1916 being notice dated 22.07.2006 for demolition of the building standing on the aforesaid plot being old and dilapidated for pubic safety.
It is alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid notice demolition was carried out by the owner himself on 01.08.2006 and thereafter vide declaration under the Municipalities Act the said property was declared an open plot by order dated 12.08.2006, which is annexed as Annexure No.6 & 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter executed a sale deed on 14.08.2006 and proper stamp duty was paid and the sale deed was registered. It appears that thereafter the Sub-Registrar has submitted a report on 18.08.2006 that the petitioner has in fact purchased a commercial building and not an open plot as declared by him and therefore has undervalued the property and paid stamp duty on the aforesaid undervalued property.
The proceedings under Section 47A were initiated by issuance of notice. The petitioner replied to the notice and demanded a fresh inspection by any authority. The demand of inspection was denied by the Collector on the ground that there was a report of Tehsildar in another proceedings in respect of the same property, wherein, it has been indicated that earlier the property was in the nature of a commercial property being a building, however, the same has been demolished and it is in the shape of plot.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the report of Tehsildar is of three months after the execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was enough evidence before the Collector regarding the status of the property in question, as he had filed the order of Nagar Palika directing for demolition of the property and declaration of the property as open plot. Merely, on the basis of an ex-parte report by the Sub- Registrar the Collector has proceeded to deny the claim of the petitioner specially when the petitioner had himself requested for afresh inspection.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in appeal before the Commissioner under Section 56(1A) the view of the Collector has only been affirmed.
In this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. It does appear that the Collector while passing an order under Section 47A ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner to bring into consideration the order of declaration for the Nagar Palika that the property in question has been demolished and the same has been declared to as an open plot and should have also made an fresh inspection. It is settled law that inspection report prior to the proceedings under Section 47A is meaningless as in that report the petitioner was not associated and the reliance totally on the said report would be against the Principles of Natural Justice.
Under the circumstances, the order of the Commissioner as well as the Collector under Sections 56(1A) and 47A cannot be sustained and hereby quashed. It is further provided that any amount deposited pursuant to the order under Section 47A & 56(1A) shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. However, beyond two months the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of expiry of two months till date the actual payment is made to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010 pks