- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioner purchased a part of land No. 109 measuring 127. 5 Sq. m. on 7. 2. 1996 situated at Sulem Sarai area from Smt. Bela Devi and paid cost of the said land of Rs. 61,500/- and stamp duty of Rs. 8335/- accordingly. Thereafter, after gap of one year petitioner received show cause, notice on 31. 1. 1997 mentioning therein as to why deficiency of stamp duty be not imposed on the petitioner as well as penalty to which petitioner filed his objection on 5. 6. 1997. Thereafter order was passed holding therein deficiency of stamp duty and petitioner was asked to pay sum of Rs. 8775/ -. Against said order petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) AFTER pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner SriRam Krishna Mishra,contended with vehemence that in the present case no exercise whatsoever was undertaken by the authority concerned and on mere surmises and conjecture deficiency in stamp duty has been noted and same has been directed to be recovered, as such orders impugned in question are liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and as such no interference is required to be made.
(3.) BEFORE proceedings to consider the case in hand the view point of this Court and Apex Court is being looked into. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Bansal v. D. M. , AIR. 1999 SC 2126 has held that circle rates under Rule 340-A is merely a guideline and at best prima facie rate of the area concerned and on the one hand parties to the deed are entitled to say that actual valuation is less than the circle rate and the other hand Collector is also empowered to decide that actual market value is more than the circle rates.;