Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been directed against the impugned order passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad, dated 21.3.2001. By the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 2 has rejected the Stamp Revision of the petitioner holding that there is stamp deficiency of Rs. 3.81.920 and he has also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,080 which is over and above the deficient amount.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-Surabhi Hospital Pvt. Ltd. purchased residential plot No. 14 in Block T of Sector 12, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short "NOIDA") having an area of 162 sq. metre through a registered transfer deed dated 26.9.1998. The petitioner paid stamp duty according to prevailing circle rates on a consideration of Rs. 4 lacs. The plot of land was purchased from Sri Raja Ram and Smt. Suman Verma as per terms and conditions of original lease deed dated. 1.6.1998 after obtaining necessary permission for transfer on 24.9.1998 from NOIDA. Permission accorded by NOIDA is contained in Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit. Subject of Transfer of Memorandum is "Transfer Permission in respect of Residential Plot T-14, Sector-12, NOIDA complex". Condition 13 of the aforesaid permission provides that "the transferee shall put the property in the use exclusively for residential purpose and not use for any other purpose". This permission was granted by NOIDA.
(3.) A notice dated 22.3.1999 was issued by respondent No. 3 stating that the plot in question was purchased for commercial purpose and accordingly the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 3,81,920 be not recovered from it. The petitioner filed objection stating that the plot was purchased for residential purpose and the hospital has purchased the land for residential purpose of its employees. Addl. District Magistrate (Finance), Gautam Budh Nagar in the impugned order has stated that the plot has been purchased in the name of the hospital and as such it can only be used for commercial purpose. This finding of the respondent No. 3 is purely based on assumption. From the record, it is apparent that the plot has been purchased for residential purposes. According to terms and conditions of original lease deed as well as according to condition No. 13 of the Transfer Memorandum, as stated above, it is clearly established that the plot was purchased for residential purpose. From the above documents, it is also apparent that in case the petitioner uses the plot in question for commercial purpose, transfer is liable to be cancelled or the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty on commercial plot. Under Section 47A of the Stamps Act, the authority cannot impose stamp duty for future use. Even otherwise, the petitioner has categorically stated that the aforesaid plot is for residential purpose.;