S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) A sale deed in respect of a Bhumidhari holding was executed by Smt. Murta, widow of Jai Ram on 31 -1 -92 in favour of Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and was registered by the District Registrar, Sultanpur on 31 -1 -92 The sale consideration mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed was Rs. 40,000/ - and the District Registrar had assessed the market value of the land which was the subject matter of the sale deed to be of an amount of Rs. 44,000/ -. Since the District Registrar, Sultanpur had assessed the market value of the land which was sought to be transferred under the sale deed referred to above to be Rs. 44,000/ -, the stamp duty required to be paid was determined taking into consideration the aforesaid market value and was paid before registration.
(2.) IT appears that the Additional District Magistrate District Stamp Officer, Sultanpur issued a notice dated 24 -2 -92 to the vendees where in it was indicated that the stamp duty paid on the sale deed dated 31 -1 -92 was deficient and required them to show cause within a week and intimating that otherwise proceedings for recovery of the deficient stamp duty along with penalty will be initiated. It further appears that after considering the explanation of the vendees the District Stamp Officer, Sultanpur vide his order dated 2 -5 -92, held that there was a deficiency of stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 1,24,865/ - imposed a penalty of Rs. 75.000/ - purporting to act under Section 33 read with Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act Thereafter proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,24,865/ - and Rs. 75,000/ - totalling Rs 1,99,865/ - were initiated. The Petitioners challenged the order dated 2 -5 -92, by means of a revision under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act which was filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and was registered as Stamp Revision No. 181/92 -93 district Sultanpur The aforesaid revision was taken up for preliminary hearing on 11 -6 -92 and was admitted for hearing on merits by the Respondent calling for the record of the case as well as a report from Respondent No 2. Although the revision was admitted for hearing on merits as indicated above, on the application moved by the Petitioners for stay of the realisation of the amount of deficiency and the penalty to which a reference has been made above, the Respondent No. 1 stayed the recovery of the penalty only with the result that the proceedings for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,24,865/ - as arrears of land revenue remained unaffected.
(3.) IN the above circumstances, the Petitioners filed another application seeking modification of the order dated 11 -6 -92 and prayed for the stay of the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,24,865/ - also by which amount the stamp duty in question had been held to be deficient. This application was also rejected by the Respondent No. 1 vide the order dated 22 -7 -92.;