S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of parties the matter is being finally heard and decided. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgments of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 5.7.95 and 28.4.93 (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively).
(2.) THE petitioners purchased a built up house having total area 199 Sq. Yd. known as 1.21 and 1.22 Hakikat Nagar in District Saharanpur. On a consideration of Rs. 2.50 lacs the petitioners paid stamp duty to a tune of Rs. 25,000 at the time of execution of sale deed and thus the total stamp duty to a tune of Rs. 36,400 was paid. It appears that notice was issued against the petitioners under the provisions of Stamps Act. The petitioners filed their reply. Respondent No. 2 called for report from the Tahsildar who submitted his report on 26.11.92 in which it has been pointed out that the market value of the property in question will be Rs. 2,51,642.50. The report of Tahsildar has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 by order dated 28.4.83 held that the value of the property comes at Rs. 5,44,042 upon which respondent No. 2 found that the petitioners are liable to pay that the stamp duty as Rs. 42,297.50 and penalty to a tune of Rs. 37,297.50 and thus a total of Rs. 79,998 was levied against the petitioner; Aggrieved against the order of respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed revision before respondent No. 1 who in turn modified the judgment of respondent No. 2 so far as the penalty is concerned and that part of judgment and order was set aside but levy of stamp duty was confirmed on 5.9.95. It is against these two orders the petitioners have come before this Court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts below have not assigned any cogent reason, for not accepting the report of Tahsildar, according to which the value of property has been assessed only a tune of Rs. 2,51,462.50. According to the learned counsel there was no other material available on the record and that too, justifying the assessment valuation as has been made by the Courts below and therefore, it has been submitted that the valuation of property as has been imagined by the Courts below cannot be sustained. It has been further submitted that after purchase of property by the petitioners in the year 1992, in fact more than half of the portion of that very property was sold by him in the year 1997, to one Devendra Makani against whom under Section 33/47A of the Stamps Act was proceeded in which according to the learned counsel the value of property was held as Rs. 1.62 lacs. The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought before the Court, the copy of judgment of the Additional Collector dated 13th May, 1998 as was passed in respect to that transaction as Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit The copy of this rejoinder affidavit was served on learned Chief Standing Counsel on 12th November, 1999 but no further affidavit has come in this respect. It has been specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the valuation as has been assessed by the Courts below is totally arbitrary and perverse.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has pointed out that the Courts below have taken into account the valuation as was made in respect to another property whose reference has been given in the orders of Courts below and it is on that basis, the property has been rightly valued and as such there is no perversity in levying stamp duty on the property against the petitioner.;