Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner had purchased certain property on 22.2.1993, which is in the shape of a constructed house and the entire building is in possession of the tenant and is also covered under the Rent Control Act.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the market value of the property as assessed by the Collector is improper and the rent fixed by him has no basis. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that after the issuance of notices etc. spot inspection was made on 21.1.1994 and it was found that the said property is situated in commercial area and, therefore, after making the local enquiry, the rental value was assessed to be at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and thereby the Collector has determined the deficiency in the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 64,015/- and penalty to the tune of Rs. 985/-. Against the order of the Collector passed under Section 47-A dated 31.1.1994, revision was preferred before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. under Section 56 of the Stamp Act being Stamp Revision No. 131 of 1994-95. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority affirmed the order of the Collector on the ground that the property is located in the heart of commercial complex and is a double storey building comprising of shops and was in agreement with the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) for the estimation of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- as just and proper. However, he granted some relief by deleting the penalty as imposed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance).
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the orders. It appears that the estimation of market value on the basis of rent of the property is based on relevant considerations and after due inspection as provided under 1997 Rules and there is no error in the order of the Collector and also in the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed under Section 56 of the Stamp Act which may merit any interference by this Court.;