RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, petition has challenged the notice dated 4-6-2005 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Stamp, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) relating to the valuation and the deficiency of the stamp in Case No. 1/2005-06, State v. A.D. State Developers, on the ground that once the stamp duty has been determined under Section 31 of the Act, the respondents has no jurisdiction to reopen the valuation of the property and the proceedings under Sections 47-A/33 of the Act suffers from manifest illegality on the face of the record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the determination of the stamp duty of Plot No. 1/2, area 4.07 acre located in Ramgarh Tal Pariyojna, District Gorakhpur, which is located at 110 mtr. away from the main road, the petitioner moved an application under Section 31 of the Act on 21-11-2003. Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur after getting the report from Tehsildar Sadar and having regard to the location of the plot, vide order dated 20-3-2004 determined the amount of stamp duty at Rs. 9.50 lacs @ 19 lacs per acre. Thereafter, an endorsement was made by Additional District Magistrate, (F&R), Gorakhpur holding power of the Collector on the sale-deed executed on the stamp duty vide its order dated 26-3-2004 and has observed that in pursuance of the application dated 21-11-2003 the sale-deed has been valued and according to which a sum of Rs. 7,73,300/- was payable towards stamp duty, which has been paid. He further submitted that once the stamp duty has been determined under Section 31 of the Act, it is not open to the Collector or the person authorised on his behalf to raise the demand on the ground of deficiency under Sections 33/47-A of the Act. He further submitted that the order dated 20-3-2004 was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 21535 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 9-5-2007 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and confirmed the order passed under Section 31 of the Act. It is submitted that the impugned notice dated 4-6-2005 purported to re-open the case and disputing the valuation of the property and the stamp duty paid on the instrument is absolutely illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he referred the various decisions.
(3.) SMT . Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the valuation of the property has not been made in accordance to the law and, therefore, then notice dated 4-6-2005 has been rightly issued under Sections 33/47-A of the Act.;