Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 2818 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40835 of 1996
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M.B. Misra
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard Shri Mata Badal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

An additional stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 7,683/- has been imposed on the petitioner for having violated the provisions of Indian Stamp Act.  In proceedings under Section 47-A thereof the basis for imposing additional duty on the instrument is that the property transacted is situated in a commercial area and that it would fetch a rent of Rs. 300/- per month.

The proceedings had started on the basis of a complaint by one Shri Sita Saran against whom mala fides have been alleged by the petitioner.  The revision filed by the petitioner has also been rejected affirming the order of the Stamp Authority.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been asserted that the imposition of additional stamp duty and penalty is founded on the report that was received from the Sub Registrar, Meja and there is no occasion for any interference with the impugned orders.

Shri  Mishra contends that the petitioner as well as the complainant both made a request for spot inspection and it was categorically asserted that in fact only a five feet wall was existing and there was no room in existence as such the conclusion drawn that the premises would fetch a rent of Rs. 300/- per month is a wrong assessment and the conclusion drawn is perverse.

Learned counsel submits that the Revising Authority has also completely overlooked this aspect of the matter and without calling  for any spot inspection report or any verification of the said allegations made by the petitioner the imposition of the additional duty is unjustifiable.  

I have perused the counter affidavit and the aforesaid fact that there was only a five feet wall existing has not been denied.  The construction therefore, was not a complete room so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that it would fetch a rent of Rs. 300/- per month. There was no material or evidence to substantiate the same.  In my opinion this assessment was only speculative.

In the circumstances the order proceeds on an absolutely erroneous assumption of fact and, therefore, has been rightly assailed as being perverse.  The Revising Authority erroneously refused to exercise its jurisdiction once there was a material irregularity by not carrying out a spot inspection or  even otherwise by ignoring the aforesaid uncontroverted fact as asserted by the petitioner. 

The writ petition deserves to be allowed.  The impugned orders dated 18.4.1996 and 15.11.1996 are hereby quashed.  There shall be no order as to costs.  The petitioner shall not be liable to make any further deposits.

Order Date :- 10.7.2012

S.Prakash