Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26030 of 2006 Petitioner :- Suraj Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 2 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 the plot in dispute measuring 25X25 square feet from Gulab Singh, Brajraj Singh and Malkhan Singh, resident of Village Gahrauli, District Hamirpur through a registered sale deed dated 14.11.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- and paid stamp duty at Rs. 2000/- per square feet. It is also stated that the same plot was earlier purchased by Gulab Singh, Brajraj Singh and Malkhan Singh through a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2002 from Ram Sanehi for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- on which stamp duty was paid at Rs. 1500/- per square feet. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. The Collector (Stamp) vide his order dated 09.05.2003 found, on spot inspection, that the plot in dispute actually measured 25X135 square feet and, therefore, determined the market value of the property at Rs. 6,28,000/- and the stamp duty payable thereon at Rs. 40,800/- as deficiency of stamp duty and registration charges at Rs. 2640/-. He has also imposed penalty twice the amount of deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 81,600, total Rs. 1,25,040/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Stamp) dated 09.05.2003, the petitioner preferred stamp appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham, Banda by his order dated 28.04.2006.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner throughout is that the plot in dispute measured 25X25 square feet and it was purchased by Gulab Singh, Brajraj Singh and Malkhan Singh, who in turn purchased the same plot on 24.01.2002 from Ram Sanehi through sale deed dated 24.02.2001 and, therefore, the question of the area of the land being 25X135 square feet does not arise. He further states that he has absolutely no concern with the excess land. It is always open to the State Government to acquire the land or demolish any construction made on that land as the excess land does not belong to the petitioner. The Collector (Stamp) in his order has noticed that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit dated 23.04.2003 stating that he has purchased 25X25 square feet plot from Gulab Singh, Brajraj Singh and Malkhan Singh and it is on this plot that he had laid his foundation and that if any land in excess of this area is found, it may be seized by the Government and disposed of in whatever manner it wants as the excess land does not belong to the petitioner.
This affidavit does not appear to have been considered by the Collector (Stamp) in its proper perspective particularly the declaration made therein and instead the Collector (Stamp) has proceeded to note that in the adjacent plot of Geeta Devi in the north Devi Deen and in the south Ram Ratan, their plots also measured 25X135 square feet.
According to the petitioner, he has no concern with the plots of Geeta Devi, Devi Deen and Ram Ratan or why their plots measured 25X135 square feet. He submits that he has paid stamp duty on the measurement of the land being 25X25 square feet, which was also mentioned in the sale deed of Ram Sanehi and Gulab Singh, Brajraj Singh and Malkhan Singh and any land in excess of this measurement, does not belong to him.
In my opinion the averments and undertaking given in the affidavit of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Collector (Stamp) and the Commissioner in the proper perspective and it should have been determined as to what is that excess area of 25X135 square feet.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent No. 3 to re-consider the matter in the light and the observations made above as well as the undertaking given by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 23.04.2002 and if on fresh measurement the land is found to be in excess of the land as mentioned in the sale deed, it will always be open for the Collector (Stamp) or the State Government to seize the same or demolish any construction standing thereon. The Respondent No. 3 shall 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.
The writ petition is allowed.
Any amount paid towards deficiency of stamp duty shall be subject to the final order, which may be passed by the Respondent No. 3.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 S.K.