Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allaharad in Revision No. 51 of 2002-03 Smt. Meena Khanna v. State contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition and the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Allahabad, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition before this Court
(2.) Brief facts giving rise cause of action of instant writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a house in Sadiapur locality in city Allahabad for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- through registered sale deed on 5.2.1993 from one Dr. Budh Prakash son of Late Shyam Sunder Lal. The market value of the house in question on the date of execution of sale deed according to the circle rate fixed was Rs. 1,79,920/-( Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand nine hundred twenty), but the stamp duty on the sale deed in question was paid by the petitioner on the valuation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Since the house was purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/- which was more than market value/circle rate of the house in question. After registration of the sale deed the same was returned to the petitioner by the office of the Sub-Registrar (Chail), Allahabad. According to the petitioner all of sudden on 18.4.2002 she came to know that a recovery certificate has been issued against her to recover the amount of Rs. 50,750/- as deficiency of stamp duty in. the aforesaid sale deed in pursuance of an order passed by Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad. The petitioner went to the court of Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad and inquired into the matter, there upon she came to know about the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by Chief Revenue Officer directing a recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,750/- from the petitioner as deficiency in the stamp duty on the sale deed in question under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 27.1.2001 which was received on 19.4.2002. It is stated that before passing the impugned order dated 27.1.2001 under Section 47-A of Stamp Act the respondent No. 3 did neither issue any notice to the petitioner nor any alleged notice dated 6.8.1997 has ever been served upon her nor any inquiry as contemplated under Section 47-A (3) of Stamp, Act has been made in the matter to determine the actual market value of the property which was subject matter of instrument in question rather straightway an order had been passed by the respondent No. 3 holding that there is deficiency of stamp duty in the deed in question amounting to Rs. 50,750/- and directed a recovery to be made from the petitioner.
(3.) Immediately on receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 27.1.2001 the petitioner moved an application along with an affidavit for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 27.1.2001 on 23.4.2002 and to decide the case on merits after hearing the petitioner. There upon it was ordered by the respondent No. 3 to "put up for objection". There upon the petitioner has filed an objection in detail on 30.4.2002. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 has fixed a date 10.5.2002 for hearing of the case and on the aforesaid date the case was heard and a further date 17.5.2002 was fixed for judgment/order but no order was passed by the concerned authority. Ultimately the petitioner moved a transfer application before the Collector as such the Collector himself has heard the case and passed the impugned order on 11.3.2003 without considering the written objection and arguments of counsel of petitioner. By this order while rejecting the application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 27.1.2001 the respondent No. 3 has held that since the reference has already been made by Deputy Registrar on 10.1.1996 within a period of four years and there is deficiency in the payment of stamp duty chargeable upon instrument, therefore, along with the deficiency of Rs. 50,750/- a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has also been ordered as penalty to be paid by the petitioner. The aforesaid order has been passed without holding any inquiry as contemplated under Section 47-A (3) of the Stamp Act. Feeling against the impugned order dated 11.3.2003 the petitioner filed a revision under Section 56 of Indian Stamp Act before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority- Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, which was registered as Revision No. 51 of 2002-03. After hearing the revision, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad has passed the impugned order contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition, whereby he maintained almost whole order passed by respondent No. 3 and set aside only to the extent it pertains to the penalty of a sum of Rs, 25,000/-imposed upon the petitioner. No other point including the question of limitation and merit of the case has been considered and dealt with by the Commissioner hence this writ petition.;