SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. A sale deed dated 17.2.2006 was executed in favour of the petitioner and the property was represented in the said sale deed as a vacant plot. However, subsequently the Sub-Registrar submitted his report dated 5.6.2006 wherein it was stated that constructions existed over the plot and therefore the property in the sale deed dated 17.2.2006 was under-valued and there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed. The deficiency reported by the Sub-Registrar was of Rs. 17,200/-. On the aforesaid report of the Sub-Registrar, Case No. 152/06-07 under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered before the Additional District Magistrate/Collector (Stamp), District Etawah i.e. respondent no. 3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner who submitted his reply denying the correctness of the report of the Sub-Registrar and in his reply, the petitioner stated that the constructions existing over the plot were made by the petitioner himself, after the execution of the sale deed, to safeguard the construction materials purchased by the petitioner to make further constructions on the plot. Subsequently, in Case No. 152/06-07, the Additional District Magistrate i.e. respondent no. 3 called for a report from the Deputy District Magistrate, Etawah who submitted his report on 10.9.2007 stating that one room, which was constructed almost 30-40 years back, existed on the plot and the value of the said room was computed by the Deputy District Magistrate as Rs. 20,000/-. In his report, the Deputy District Magistrate stated that there was a deficiency of Rs. 1,975/- in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 17.2.2006. However, the respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 29.9.2007, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar, held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 15,300/- in payment of stamp duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- on the petitioner. Through his order dated 29.9.2007, the respondent no. 3 also directed that the aforesaid amount along with a registration fees of Rs. 1,560/- and an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month be recovered from the petitioner. The order dated 29.9.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 was challenged by the petitioner through Appeal No. 6/07 under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur i.e. respondent no. 2 who vide his order dated 31.5.2008 dismissed the aforesaid appeal. The orders dated 31.5.2008 and 29.9.2007 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) A perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition show that the petitioner had admitted in the courts below that a room constructed almost 40 years back existed on the plot and before this Court also, the counsel for the petitioner has admitted that he is liable to pay stamp duty on the same. A perusal of the records also shows that in his order dated 10.9.2007, the Deputy District Magistrate had reported the existence of the aforesaid room and had also stated that the plot was at a distance of almost 200 meters from the road. However, the respondent no. 3 without considering the report of the Deputy District Magistrate, which was called for by respondent no. 3 himself in exercise of his powers under Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997') relied on the report of the Sub-Registrar while determining the market value of the property and the consequential stamp duty payable on the sale deed dated 17.2.2006. The report dated 5.6.2006 of the Sub-Registrar was an ex-parte report and was relevant only for a reference and to register a case under Sections 47A(2) or 47A(3) of the Act, 1899. The respondent no. 3 had clearly erred in relying on the aforesaid report of the Sub-Registrar when the correctness of the said report was denied by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice and the contents of the said report of the Sub-Registrar were also shown to be incorrect by the report dated 10.9.2007 submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 31.5.2008 and 29.9.2007 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively are contrary to law and are, hereby, set-aside.
(3.) However, as it is admitted by the petitioner that the report of the Deputy District Magistrate correctly depicted the situation of the property, the petitioner is liable to deposit the deficiency of Rs. 1,975/- along with an interest at the rate of 1.5% per month calculated on the same. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that he has already deposited Rs. 7,000/- in pursuance to the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 and counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid amount is more than what the petitioner is liable to deposit according to the report of the Deputy District Magistrate. The petitioner may submit an application before respondent no. 3 for refund of the excess amount who after re-calculating the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner, taking the deficiency in payment of stamp duty as Rs. 1,975/- only, shall refund the excess amount to the petitioner and in case the petitioner was still liable to pay some amount, a reasonable time shall be granted to the petitioner to deposit the same.;