Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad, in case No. 156 of 2008-09, State vs. Surendar Kaur, the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Additional Collector, (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad on the Restoration application, which was filed for recalling of the order dated 20.12.2008 and the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut in Appeal No. 99 of 2008-09, Smt. Surendar Kaur Vs. State of U.P., under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act.
(3.) The petitioner had bought the property in question on 29.07.2006. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad and a report was submitted on 23.06.2008 and the petitioner was consequently put to notice. The order dated 20.12.2008 was passed by the Additional Collector despite the fact that the petitioner had not filed any reply. In fact, in the order itself it was found that the petitioner had not put in appearance and only by presuming service of notice, the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad had proceeded with the matter. When the petitioner subsequently filed a recall application stating that no notice was served upon her, the same was dismissed on 30.03.2009. Before the Appellate Court again it was submitted by the petitioner that there was no notice to her, yet the Revisional Court without giving any finding as to whether there was a notice or not decided the Revision and dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submission:- (i) The Courts below should have ascertained and should have been fully satisfied that there was a notice to the petitioner. Only, thereafter, they should have proceeded with the adjudication in the stamp case. (ii) When the petitioner had filed the recall application then again a finding ought to have been arrived at as to whether there was a notice. (iii) The Revisional Court also did not advert to the submission that the proceedings had continued without any notice. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even on merits the Additional Collector wrongly decided the case as it had depended on a hearsay evidence and had come to a conclusion that the petitioner's land also had to be priced at the rate at which plot No. 444 was sold. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in , (Anupam Infrastructures and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and another, 2010 111 RevDec 426) and submitted that during the preparation of the inspection report the petitioner was not there. He submits that such evidence could be termed as hearsay evidence and could not from the basis of an order by which deficiency of stamp duty was being calculated.;