Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed against the order dated 9.2.2000 by which the respondents have directed to pay the deficient stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 80,900 and a penalty to the similar amount totalling Rs. 1,61,800.
(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3 who was a property dealer constructed a multi-storied flat and a flat No. 501 was agreed to sale to Super Tannery India Ltd. respondent No. 4. The flat was allotted, however, the conveyance was not executed in favour of Super Tannery India Ltd. The respondent No. 4 has nominated the petitioner at the consideration of the same amount of Rs. 7,75,000 to sale the property in favour of the petitioner. It was also agreed between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the property will be conveyed either in the name of Super Tannery India Ltd. or any other person nominated by him. It is alleged that an agreement was also executed on 18.7.1995. A sale deed was executed and the stamp duty was paid, as the valuation of the property at the rate of Rs. 8,02,500/- as such, the stamp duty was payable on the said amount, amounting to Rs. 80,900 and the said payment was made at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 20.11.1998. However, the matter was referred by the Registrar, Kanpur to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act for scrutinising the matter whether the stamp duty, which has been paid that is sufficient or not. In pursuance of the aforesaid reference the petitioner received a notice from the District Magistrate, Kanpur in Case No. 2/1998-99 (State v. Bagaria Properties Ltd.) . The petitioner filed an objection in the said case on 28.7.1999. It has been stated in the objection that the Sub-Registrar concerned has wrongly referred the matter without looking into the provisions of the Stamp Act. The petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 28 sub-clause (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. The same is being reproduced below : 28(3) "Where a person, having contracted for the purchase of any property but not having obtained a conveyance thereof contracts to sell the same in any other person and the property is in consequence conveyed immediately to the sub-purchaser, the conveyance shall be chargeable with ad valorem duty in respect of the consideration for the sale by the original purchaser for the sub-purchaser."
(3.) The District Magistrate without considering the said provision has rejected the objection of the petitioner and has imposed the deficiency of Rs. 80,900/- by judgment and order dated 9.2.2000. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was numbered as Revision No. 164 of 2000, (Fahid Bin Tank v. District Magistrate, Kanpur) .;