RAJ KUMAR DABRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-11-8
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 27,2012

Raj Kumar Dabra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA,J. - (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23-07-2008, passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand Dehradun contained as No. 5 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition according to petitioner in short are that the petitioner purchased a house situated at Sawarn Nath Nagar, Haridwar for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- from Dr. Sukhpal Singh Verma and another and who handed over the vacant physical possession to the petitioner. The construction of the house was 75 years old and it was in dilapidated condition. The petitioner sold out the said house to Smt. Sonal Jain. After purchase of the house Smt. Sonal Jain spent a huge amount and reconstructed it. After purchase of the said house by the petitioner in the year 2000, the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance), Haridwar sent a notice to the petitioner and registered a Stamp Case No. 300- MV/99-2000 U/S 47-A/33/40 Kha of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The stamp case was contested by the respondent by filing objection. The A.D.M. (Finance) Haridwar after conducting the enquiry came to the conclusion that the market value of the house is Rs. 33,54,702/- and the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 33,000/-, which was calculated by the said authority, has been deposited by the petitioner on 17-11-2000, vide challan No. 43- A. It is further pleaded in the writ petition in para-12 that after lapse of six years the respondent-State has preferred the revision No. 27 of 2006-07 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand Dehradun. In the revision the petitioner has also raised objection to the fact that the revision is time barred and no delay condonation application has been filed, but learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner has illegally entertained the revision, and set aside the order passed by District Magistrate Haridwar and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit duty of Rs. 5,52,700/- and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. two lacs as penalty.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.