S.N.Srivastava - (1.) -This writ petition is directed against an order passed in Revision No. 189/1997-98, under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue, U. P., at Allahabad, dated 6.2.2002, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, preferred against an order dated 23.5.1997, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition and Irrigation), Ghaziabad by which additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,155 and penalty of Rs. 5 was imposed on the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner purchased a part of plot No. 78, Khata No. 196, Village Doyami, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad from one Rajesh Kumar, son of Tara Chand paying sale consideration of Rs. 1,93,500. Petitioner paid Rs. 28,060 stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 72,000 per pukhta bigha in accordance with the Circle Rate fixed by the Collector at relevant time. He further urged that remaining part of the same plot was purchased by one Smt. Punam at the same rate and the stamp duty already paid was found sufficient by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue while allowing the revision preferred by Smt. Punam which was registered as Revision No. 190/1997-98. He further urged that said judgment of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was filed alongwith an application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who admitted the same as additional evidence, but the said judgment was not taken into account while deciding the revision of petitioner and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority wrongly and illegally dismissing revision of petitioner affirming the order passed by Additional Collector (Land Acquisition and Irrigation), Ghaziabad. It is lastly urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order otherwise also suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and is liable to be quashed. In reply to the same, learned standing counsel urged that in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, which is application filed by the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, there is no mention of date of filing of the Application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Board of Revenue and as such there is nothing on record to show that this judgment was part of the record of revision filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and, therefore, the said judgment/order was rightly not taken note of.
(3.) IN rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner referred Paragraph 16 of the writ petition, reply of which has been given in Paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit and urged that this fact has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit that certified copy of the judgment/order alongwith the application was not filed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue. He also referred paragraph 11 of the rejoinder-affidavit by which averments made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition have been specifically reiterated with full detail. On considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that Smt. Punam purchased a part of plot No. 78, measuring 2 bigha 13 biswa 14 biswansi and petitioner also purchased the remaining half share of the same plot on 16.8.1992 and paid stamp duty at the same rate. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue by the judgment dated 14.1.2000 recorded a specific finding that the circle rate fixed for the purposes for calculating stamp duty by the Collector was Rs. 72,000 only per bigha, but the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority while deciding the revision of petitioner, recorded a different finding relating to Circle Rate for calculating Stamp duty of same plot as Rs. 3,60,000 per bigha without considering judgment dated 14.1.2000. The judgment dated 14.1.2000 was passed against the State and has force of res judicata. It is surprising that the same authority recorded two different circle rates as regard to sale deeds fixing different circle rates of the Collector. This Court also perused the Chart of Circle Rate of Village Doyami, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, district Ghaziabad fixed by the Collector and from the materials on record, I am satisfied that the judgment dated 14.1.2000 of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Board of Revenue in the Revision of Smt. Punam was rightly passed in accordance with law. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue acted illegally in recording different finding in the subsequent revision about the sale deed of same date of same plot.;