Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) The petitioner purchased Plot Nos. 447/2(M), 448/2, 449, 450, 451(M), 414(M), 508/1, 509/2, 511/2, 512/3, 519/2 and 518/1 (area 0.61330 hectares) through sale deed dated 20.4.2012. Spot inspection was conducted on 14.5.2012 by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp) and Deputy Registrar, District-Meerut, who submitted a report dated 30.5.2012 stating that the said sale-deed was insufficiently stamped and the deficiency in the stamp duty was reported to be Rs. 3,70,780/-. The aforesaid deficiency was calculated on the basis that the plots purchased through the sale-deed dated 20.4.2012 were situated on a link road and were within 200 meters of abadi area. On the aforesaid report, Case No. 47/V/138/2012-13 was registered before the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') and a notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted his reply stating that the report was incorrect and also denied that the plots referred in the sale-deed dated 20.4.2012 were situated on a link road. In the aforesaid case, petitioner also filed an application dated 4.10.2012 praying that the Collector may call a fresh report after getting the property inspected. However, the Collector, Meerut vide his order dated 22.11.2012 disposed of Case No. 47/V/138/2012-13 without deciding the application dated 4.10.2012 filed by the petitioner. In his judgement and order dated 22.11.2012, the Collector, Meerut calculated the deficiency in stamp duty as Rs. 98,840/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,968/- on the petitioner. The order dated 22.11.2012 was passed by the Collector, Meerut relying on the report of the Additional Commissioner (Stamp) and Deputy Registrar, District-Meerut wherein it was reported that the plots were situated on a link road and were within 200 meters of abadi area. Against the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Meerut, petitioner filed an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut, which was numbered as Appeal No. 22/2012-13. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Appellate authority vide its order dated 28.2.2013. The judgements and orders dated 22.11.2012 and 28.2.2013 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the correctness of report dated 14.5.2012/30.5.2012 submitted by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp) and Deputy Registrar, District-Meerut, on which Case No 47/V/138/2012-13 was registered under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 was disputed and contested by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner had filed an application dated 4.10.2012 for inspection of the properties and the Collector, Meerut could not have decided Stamp Case No 47/V/138/2012-13 without passing any order on the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the report dated 14.5.2012/30.5.2012 was an ex-parte report and the Collector had acted illegally in mechanically relying on the aforesaid report and without himself inspecting the property as mandated by Rule 7(3)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property), Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997'). It has been further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the ex-parte report dated 14.5.2012/30.5.2012 did not correctly depict the location of the plots mentioned in the sale-deed dated 20.4.2012. It was further argued by counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Collector, Meerut in his order dated 22.11.2012 that the plots purchased by the petitioner were located on a link road and were within 200 meters of abadi are without any evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no reasons have been given by the respondents in their orders dated 22.11.2012 and 28.2.2013 for calculating the stamp duty liable to be paid on the sale-deed dated 20.4.2012 by taking the plots referred in the aforesaid sale-deed as a single unit, and the said orders are therefore illegal and contrary to law and liable to be set aside.;