- (1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) It appears, in a proceeding under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') for recording the name in revenue record, on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of the applicant, an application was filed by the present petitioner to decide the question of stamp duty and then proceed with to decide the application under section 34 of the Act. The objection, which was raised, was to the effect that proper stamp duty was not paid, therefore, the said document / deed could not be treated to be a valid deed on account of which name can be recorded in revenue record. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar District Muzaffarnagar, against which, the petitioner filed revision; that too was dismissed.
(3.) On being confronted that what is the relationship in between the non-payment of proper stamp duty in a registered document/deed (instrument of conveyance) with non-disposal of an application under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions contained under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1899'), the authority concerned, which was acting upon on the basis of a registered sale deed, ought to have proceeded for impounding the deed, which is unduly stamped. Further in view of section 35 of the Act of 1899, the sale deed could not be considered as evidence and no mutation order could be passed on the basis of a sale deed, which is unduly stamped.;