Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1374 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26754 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Prankaj Kumar Tyagi,Smt. Archana Tyagi
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned standing counsel.

Since the pleadings are complete, counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner along with two other persons purchased a plot of land area 318 Square Metres and paid stamp duty according to the minimum rate fixed for residential land.

On the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar that the aforesaid land is of commercial nature, proceedings for determination of deficiency in stamp duty were drawn under the Indian Stamp Act.

A report of the Tehsildar was called for, which states that though in present the land in question is not of commercial nature but it is situate on the main road and on the South of it 5 shops are in exsistence.

The aforesaid land was part of a bigger plot, a part of which was transferred by the previous owner in favour of some other persons disclosing the said land to be of commercial nature.

There is no positive evidence to prove that the land in question is of residential nature or to rebut that the land had not acquired potentiality of a commercial land.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the authorities on the basis of  the commercial nature of land disclosed in the sale deed executed on the same day in respect of another part of the land have determined the market value, the determination can not be said to be faulty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that no case for imposition of penalty has been made out.

The penalty imposed is only Rs.2745/-. It is not very high or unreasonable. Therefore, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the said penalty.

In view of the above, the writ petition lacs merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.4.2011

AKJ