Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 7617 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4778 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,M.R.Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Collector, Deoria (Respondent no. 3) in Case No. 39/2002 under section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act, and the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur (Respondent no. 2) in Appeal No. 157/D of 2005.

The petitioner purchased an agricultural land vide sale deed dated 16.4.2002 for Rs. 8,50,000/- on which Rs. 68, 000/- was the stamp duty. However, petitioner only deposited Rs. 4,000/- as stamp duty and the remaining stamp duty of Rs. 63,9998/- was to be recovered. It appears that for depositing the remaining amount four months' time was sought by the petitioner. The petitioner did not file any objection nor did  the petitioner appear or participated in the proceedings.

The Collector after obtaining the report on the valuation of the property directed to recover  the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 1,40,798/- and penalty of Rs. 70,000/-.

Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur (Respondent no 3). The Commissioner recorded finding of fact that the petitioner had not objected despite opportunity, rather no objection was raised by the petitioner against the report submitted by the concerned Tehsildar. The market value of the property was assessed after consideration of large number of exhibits as has been mentioned in the order of the Collector. Petitioner has not disputed  any of the exhibits nor find any exemplar to contradict the exhibits.

The Commissioner modified the order of the Collector reducing the penalty to Rs. 9202/-.

It is admitted that the petitioner has not disputed the report submitted by the Teshildar, further, the factum that the plot is situated near Animal Service Centre and Basic Primary School and Junior High School is also not disputed.

In view of the above, this court declines to interfere with the finding of fact, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Order Date :- 16.10.2014

SKS