Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4. A sale deed dated 25.6.2001 was executed in favour of the petitioner whereby the petitioner purchased half share of House No. 195 along with the land on which the said house was constructed and paid stamp duty on the location of the property as disclosed in the sale deed. However, a report of the registering officer was submitted stating that a higher stamp duty was to be paid on the actual location of the property and the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner on a circle rate fixed for a different area. On the aforesaid reference, Case No. 476 of 2001 under section 47A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Deoria i.e. respondent no. 2. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice and in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the report of the Sub-Registrar was incorrect. Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Deoria i.e. respondent no. 2 also called for a report from the Tehsildar and relying on the aforesaid reports, the Additional District Magistrate vide his order dated 29.11.2001 held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 40,500/- in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed dated 25.6.2001, Through his aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 also imposed a fine of Rs. 4,860/- on the petitioner and directed that the aforesaid amount along with an interest of Rs. 810/- per month be recovered from the petitioner. Against the order dated 29.11.2001, the petitioner filed a Revision No. 02/397/D-2001 in the court of Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur i.e. respondent no. 3 which was also dismissed by respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 29.9.2003. The orders dated 29.11.2001 and 29.9.2003 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 29.11.2001 and 29.9.2003 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 are contrary to law in as much as the aforesaid order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate without holding a spot inspection as required under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997') and the market value of the building was determined without taking into consideration the depreciating cost of the building.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.;