SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 5.
(2.) The facts of the case are that a sale deed dated 30.7.2004 was executed in favour of the petitioner and stamp duty was paid on the aforesaid sale deed representing the constructions on the plot to be 50 years old. On an inspection by respondent no. 3, it was found that R.C.C. material was used in the constructions existing on the plot and therefore Case No. 154 of 2004 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered against the petitioner. Notices were issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid case who appeared before respondent no. 3 and contested the same. However, respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 30.11.2004 held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 30.7.2004 as R.C.C. material was used in the constructions existing on the plot and therefore the constructions could not be 50 years old and calculated the deficiency accordingly. Through his order dated 30.11.2004, respondent no. 3 also imposed penalty on the petitioner for alleged evasion in payment of stamp duty. The order dated 30.11.2004 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi i.e. respondent no. 5 under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 which was registered as Revision No. 7 of 2004-05 and the said revision was dismissed by respondent no. 5 vide his order dated 24.3.2005. The orders dated 24.3.2005 and 30.11.2004 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the courts below that the constructions existing on the plot were not 50 years old and R.C.C. material was used in the aforesaid constructions are without any evidence and further respondent no. 3 had no power to impose penalty on the petitioner. In support of his aforesaid contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Shailendra v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner, Agra Division; Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Agra Division and State of Uttar Pradesh through Collector 2006 (101) Rev Dev 476 .;