Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) ALL the writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and therefore as agreed by learned counsel for the parties haw been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE writ petition No. 2541 of 2008 has been filed by one Vibhor Rungat Son of Santosh Kumar Rungata assailing the orders dated 31st March, 200 passed by respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Gorakhpur purported exercise of power under Sections 33 and 47-A of indian Stamp Ac 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,08,800/ - towards deficiency of stamp and Rs. 10,880/-towards penalty as also interest on the aforesaid amount. There was a project namely Ram Garh Tal Project. M/s Hotel Clarks Siddharth Branch Varanasi got a plot No. 1/2 area 5 acres initially on lease, later on converted into free hold. The Project, it is said, ultimately failed. The land was located at about 110 meters from the main road. M/s Hotel Clarks intended to alienate the aforesaid property to one Hari Mohan Das Agrawal, partner M/s A.D. Estate Developer. The said developer made an application under Section 31 of the Act on 21st November, 2003 for determining the duty chargeable on the instrument. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as "A.D.M.") obtained report from Tahsildar, Sadar regarding the location of the plot in question and vide order dated 20th March, 2004 determined amount of stamp duty to Rs. 9.5 lacs on the market value of the property determined as Rs. 95 lacs i.e. Rs. 19 lacs per acre. The order dated 20th March, 2004 of A.D.M. was challenged by State of U.P. before this Court in Writ Petition No. 21535 of 2007 but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 9th May, 2007 and the Court affirmed the order dated 20.3.2004 passed under Section 31 of the Act. The said deed was executed between the parties accordingly. Later on, a notice was issued on 4th June, 2005 by Deputy Inspector General of Stamp, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur alleging that valuation of the property was much higher and the duty paid is deficient. The aforesaid notice dated 4th June, 2005 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 46951 of 2005 by M/s A.D. Estate Developers and this Court vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2007 allowed the aforesaid writ petition, quashed the said notice, observing as under: "In view of the above law laid by the Apex Court and by this Court once the Collector has determined the value of the property and the stamp duty. it is not open to the authorities concerned to reopen the case and challenge the same. The Collector becomes functus officio and provisions of Section 33 of the Act have no application."
(3.) IT is worthy to mention that aforesaid M/s A.D. Estate Developers had purchased only 4.07 acre of land though the total area of the plot was 5 acres. The sale-deed was executed on 26th March, 2004. The rest of 0.93 decimal area of the plot was sold by M/s Hotal Clarks through different sale-deeds to several persons namely Smt. Nutan Tyagi and A.K.Tyagi (Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2008), Dr. Km. Nisha Mishra (Writ Petition No. 2548 of 2008), Shashi Mauli Pandey (Writ Petition No. 2543 of 2008, the present petitioner, Sri Anup Kumar Agrawal (Writ Petition No. 2544 of 2008), Pashupati Nath Gadaia (Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2008) Anil Agrawal (Writ Petition No. 6429 of 2008) and Kashyap Adit (Writ Petition No. 6430 of 2008). The details i.e. area of plot, date of sale-deed, price on which the instrument was executed, stamp duty paid, amount of deficient stamp duty, penalty along with interest determined by respondents and the dates of impugned orders in all these writ petitions, including the present writ petition are shown as under: JUDGEMENT_125_ADJ8_2011Image1.jpg All these petitioners paid stamp duty on the basis of determination made under Section 31 of the Act on the application filed by another purchaser M/S A.D. Estate Developers. Moreover, the land was purchased by all these petitioners for residential purposes and thus the stamp duty was paid on residential rates. The Assistant Registrar, however referred the matter under Section 47A/33 of the Act to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 held that the determination made under Section 31 of the Act vis-a-vis M/s A.D. Estate Developers cannot applied as such to the case of the petitioners. The land was in commercial area and therefore is liable to be determined on the basis of the value of commercial property in the said area. He, therefore, enhanced the value by 25% and determined the stamp duty payable accordingly.;