V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER in the present writ petition is assailing the validity of the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Additional District Magis­trate, (F&R) Kanpur Nagar in Stamp Case No. 411 of 2006-07 under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act holding deficiency of stamp duty and imposing penalty as affirmed in Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. Allahabad on 25.2.2008.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that on 21.7.2004 petitioner purchased plot No. 139 area 0.348 hectares i.e. 1 Bigha 14 Biswa situated at village Rooma, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar from the then Bhumidhar by a registered sale deed. The market value of the plot was assessed at Rs. 10, 32, 920/-and a sum of Rs. 1, 03, 300/- as stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. The nature of the land at the time of sale deed was agricultural. Thereafter on 28.8.2004 after execution of the sale deed the name of the petitioner was recorded in the relevant revenue record by the order of Tehsildar. Thereafter petitioner sought to change the nature of the land from agricultural to Industrial (Commercial) and sought a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act and same was allowed on 25.11.2004. On 9.10.2006 the DIG (Registration) Kanpur Nagar conducted an ex-parte inspection and submitted his report pointing out a deficiency of Rs. 8, 36, 300/- and recommended proceedings under Section 47-A(3) to be initiated against the pe­titioner. On 17.11.2006 notice was issued to petitioner to appear and submit his reply. Pursuance thereto petitioner entered appearance and filed its objection. Additional District Magistrate, (F&R) Kanpur Nagaron 31.12.2007 passed order imposing stamp deficiency of Rs. 8, 36, 300, and interest of Rs. 5, 26, 869 and penalty of Rs. 6, 831/- total amount of Rs. 13, 70, 000 as due against the petitioner. Said order was questioned by the petitioner by preferring Revision before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, UP. Allahabad and said Revision had also been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit on behalf of State-respondents has been filed and therein action taken has been sought to be justified by mentioning that chargeability of stamp duty has been provided under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act read with U.P. Stamp (Valua­tion of Property) Rules, 1997 and here in term of the same evaluation has been done and rightful orders have been passed. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments mentioned in the writ petition. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) SRI Ashutosh Srivastava, learned-Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that both Additional District Magistrate, (F&R) Kanpur Nagar as well as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad have totally misdirected themselves by ignoring this aspect of the matter that ex parts inquiry has been carried out and based on the same deficiency has been pointed out and thereaf­ter no endeavour whatsoever has been made to determine the market value of the property on the date when instrument in question has been executed and by blindly placing reliance on circle rate fixed market value has been determined as such virtually no exercise whatsoever has been undertaken for determination of market value of the property in question, as such writ petition in question de­serves to be allowed.;