Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suneel Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5944 of 2021
Between:-
SUNEEL KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI S.K. DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE
R /O OLD. LIG.COLONY NEAR SHANKAR TEMPLE
TAH, AND DISTT. HARDA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL SAKLE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
YHR.PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE
DEPARTMENT MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER NARMADAPURAN DIVISION
HOSHANGABAD DISTT. HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR OF STAMP AND DISTRICT REGISTER
DISTT. HARDA DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA
PARISHAD HARDA DIST. HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA VERMA, PANEL LAWEYER )
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.01.2017
passed by the Collector; whereby, at the time of compounding the documents has
also imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. The aforesaid order of
Collector was duly affirmed by the Commissioner.
It is submitted that on 20.06.2012, petitioner as well as Nagar Palika
Parishad, Harda/respondent no.4 entered into an agreement for sale and allotment
Signature Not Verified
of shop no.6 situated at Maa Narmada Complex owned and possessed by Nagar
SAN
Palika Parishad, Harda. Petitioner has purchased the aforesaid shop in public
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.21 10:37:04 IST
auction for a sale price of Rs.2,10,000/- which was allotted to the petitioner on
lease for a period of 30 years and as per the terms and conditions of the
agreement, the petitioner has to pay temporary rent of Rs.288/- per month and the
shop rent will be increased @ 25% in every three years. The documents of the
agreement were executed between the parties on stamp of Rs.2,100/- after fulfilling
all the terms and conditions as imposed by the Nagar Palika Parishad. The
petitioner entered into an agreement with the Nagar Palika Parishad paying stamp
duty. All of a sudden a notice under Sections 33 and 44 (kha) of the Indian Stamps
Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1899') on 31.12.2016; wherein, it is
pointed out that in the agreement dated 20.06.2012 executed between the petitioner
and the Nagar Palika Parishad the stamp duty of Rs.2,100/- was only paid;
whereas, as per the valuation of the property, the total stamp duty cost received is
Rs.13,284/-. The Collector of Stamp, Harda has passed a final order dated
19.01.2017 exercising the power under Section 40 (Kha) of the Act of 1899 and
apart from a direction to deposit additional stamp duty of Rs.11,184/- has also
imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is
not responsible for not paying the stamp fees as he has purchased the property in
auction and whatever amount was required and as told by the Nagar Palika
Parishad, the petitioner has already deposited the same before the authorities;
therefore, it is submitted that he is ready to deposit the stamp duty but as far as the
cost is concerned, as the petitioner is not responsible for deposition of the cost,
the same may be executed and the petitioner may be exempted from depositing the
cost amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is argued that he was neither given any opportunity
of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2020.
In such circumstances, the order impugned dated 19.03.2020 is
unsustainable. He has challenged the order passed by the Collector before the
Commissioner who has upheld the order of the Collector vide order dated
19.03.2020 which is also the impugned order. Placing reliance upon the judgment
passed the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deenanath Vs. State of
M.P. reported in 2017 (2) MPLJ 596, it is submitted that the Collector was duty
Signature Not Verified
SAN bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing of the
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.21 10:37:04 IST impugned order directing for deposition of additional stamp duty. Although it is
reflected in the impugned order that the notice has been issued to the petitioner but
opportunity of hearing is not granted to the petitioner as reflected from the
impugned order itself because the entire proceedings have been drawn ex-parte;
therefore, orders are unsustainable therefore, he has prayed for quashment of the
impugned orders.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
petition stating that on perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparently clear that
prior to passing of the orders, the notices were issued to the petitioner. The
petitioner himself has failed to appear before the authorities in pursuance to the
notice issued to him; therefore, the authorities were having no other option expect
to decide the case ex-parte. It is further pointed out that a detailed order was
passed after assessment of the stamp duty being done by the Collector and it was
found that the petitioner has only paid a stamp duty of Rs.2,100/- on the
documents whereas, he was required to pay the stamp duty on a higher side.
Overall stamp duty was found to be Rs.13,284/-. The petitioner has already
deposited Rs.2,100/-; therefore, remaining stamp duty of Rs.11,134/- was required
to be deposited by the petitioner being deficit stamp duty and in terms of
provisions under Section 40 (kha) of the Act of 1899, the authorities was having a
power to impose penalty ten times; therefore, the cost of Rs.10,000/- was also
imposed upon the petitioner. It is not a case where the fault of the petitioner is
required to be seen, it is a case of deficit of stamp duty for which the Collector is
having a power to pass an order in terms of specific provisions of the Act. It is
submitted that the petition is meritless and is devoid of substance, he has prayed
for dismissal of the same.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record, it is not disputed that an agreement has been
entered into between the petitioner and the Nagar Palika Parishad with respect to a
shop in question. The stamp duty of Rs.2,100/- was paid. It is further seen that the
Collector while considering the agreement in question has found that the stamp
Signature Not Verified
duty is deficit on the same and the documents are not properly stamped.
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his appearance on
Date: 2022.02.21 10:37:04 IST
12.01.2017 before the Court vide notice dated 31.12.2016. The petitioner has not
chosen to appear before the Collector therefore, he was bound to pass an
impugned order on 19.01.2017. A detailed and exhaustive order has been passed
by the Collector giving detail particulars of the calculations with respect to
agreement and the deficit stamp duty. It was found that the document i.e.
agreement is deficit by Rs.11,184/-. It is not disputed that the Collector of Stamps
is having powers under Section 40 (kha) of the Act of 1899 for imposition of
penalty/cost in turn and exercising of the powers the Collector has imposed a cost
of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner to be deposited under the Code 0030 before the
Revenue Department. An appeal being preferred against the order of the Collector
has also been dismissed observing that the notice was issued to the petitioner and
he has chosen not to appear before the authorities and at no circumstances, it can
be seen that the opportunity of hearing was not forwarded to the petitioner. The
case law which has been relied upon the petitioner is not applicable in the present
facts and circumstances of the case because in the aforesaid case, no notice was
even issued to the parties. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued to the
petitioner and was served as is reflected from the impugned order itself.
Thus, impugned order passed by the Collector is just and proper, does not
call for any interference in the present writ petition. It is also being affirmed by the
Commissioner. Even otherwise, the amount of stamp duty and cost is also on the
lower side; therefore, the petitioner should have deposited the same before the
authorities. Shop is given to the petitioner on a lease for a period of 30 years.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petition sans merits
and is accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHALINI LANDGE
Date: 2022.02.21 10:37:04 IST
