Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.N. Bhargawa and Sri V.K. Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the State.
This writ petition arises out of an order passed by THE Stamp Authority as well as by the appellate authority upholding the said order whereby deficiency in payment of stamp duty has been found in an instrument relating to he transfer of property as described in the impugned order.
The said orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the levy of additional stamp duty and penalty are erroneous and against the weight of evidence on record and also against the description of the existing building which has been transferred.
From the findings recorded in the impugned orders one of the issues, which has been taken into consideration by the authority, is the extent of the area of open land apart from the covered area. A finding has been recorded that the stamp duty has been paid by excluding the uncovered area as a result whereof the stamp duty is deficient. According to the authorities, the area on which the stamp duty ought to have been paid was 94.19 Sq. mtrs. The appellate authority has also arrived at the same conclusion and has, thus, upheld the imposition of the additional stamp duty and the penalty.
Sri A.N. Bhargawa submits that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption of fact and by taking into irrelevant considerations particularly the site of the premises which is situate besides a narrow road. He contends that the conclusion has been drawn as if the premises stands besides a wider road which is wrong. He submits that the order is perverse and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed and the counter-affidavit explains the same stand as the reasons contained in the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel what transpires from the pleading is that the land, which has been transferred, has been described of the category of Old Grant Terms by the Cantonment Board itself. According to the Cantonment Board, the ultimate ownership of the land vests in the Union of India. In such a situation, this aspect of the matter which has been brought to the notice of the appellate authority, ought to have been taken into consideration before imposing stamp duty as the land vests in the Union of India. The consideration, therefore, for imposition of stamp duty has proceeded on a reason without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the appellate order dated 16.8.2007 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made herein above and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The amount already deposited under the interim order dated 6.9.2007 shall remain under deposit and shall be subject to the outcome of the decision in the appeal.
Dt. 3.7.2012 Irshad