ABDUL WAHEED Vs. U P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sale deed dated 11-5-2001 was executed in favour of the petitioners. According to the recital in the sale deed it was in respect of land alone. The Sub Registrar after the date of registration of the sale deed sent a reference to the Collector under S. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by his letter dated 17-7-2001. In that letter it was written that the spot inspection was carried out in which the land was found to have a three storey building standing over it, which appeared to be more than ten years old.

(2.) On the basis of this information, proceedings were started in the form of Case No. 131/2001-02 under Ss. 33/40/47 of the Indian Stamp Act. Stamp duty and penalty was imposed by an order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 27-3-2002. It was stated in that order that the Additional district Magistrate had himself inspected the property on 17-3-2002 and found three storied old house on the land in question, which appeared to be ten or twelve years old. The petitioners preferred a revision under S. 56 (1) of the Stamp Act, being Revision No. 36 of 2001-02, which was allowed by the Commissioner by order dated 8-5-2002 and the matter was remanded back with an observation that the matter be decided after spot inspection. After the remand the Additional District Magistrate, Moradabad again repeated his order. In the order he again mentioned that spot inspection was done by him which corroborated the report of the Sub Registrar dated 17-7-2001 which was based upon inspection of spot done on 11-7-2001. The order also says that it was not possible to get three storied building constructed in such a short time between the date of sale -deed and the date of inspection by the Sub Registrar. The order further says that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to prove that the construction was done after the sale deed. The order also says that despite opportunity the petitioners did not appear to argue out the case.

(3.) An appeal was preferred by the petitioners under S. 56 of the Stamp Act, being appeal No. 33 of 2002, which has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner by order dated 11-12-2002, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The Commissioner has disbelieved the contention of the petitioners that no inspection was done of the spot. He has also held that there is no requirement under the Act or the Rules for preparing a formal inspection note.