Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arjun Singhal, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. A sale deed dated 28.3.2013 regarding Plot Nos. 301 and 303 (measuring 0.7725 hect.) was executed in favour of the petitioner and stamp duty was paid at rates applicable for agricultural plots. However, a report dated 24.4.2013 was submitted by the SubRegistrar, Hapur stating that residential buildings existed adjacent to the plot and the plot was near Battistha School. On the aforesaid report, Case No. 78 of 2013- 14 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Additional Collector (FinanceRevenue), Hapur and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in the same. The petitioner submitted his reply in response to the said show cause notice stating that the plots were being used for agricultural purposes and were recorded as such in the revenue records and denied that the plots were near to Battistha School or that there was any residential building either adjacent to the plots purchased by the petitioner or near to them. However the respondent no. 3, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar, vide his order dated 3.10.2013 held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale deed and the aforesaid finding was recorded by the Additional Collector on the ground that the market value of the plots had to be determined considering the fact that the plots were near Battistha School and adjacent to certain residential plots. Against the order dated 3.10.2013, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 which was registered as Revision No. 01 of 2013- 14 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut i.e. respondent no. 2. Revision No. 01 of 2013-14 was dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 1.9.2014. The orders dated 3.10.2013 and 1.9.2014 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 3 had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by merely relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar while recording a finding regarding the location of the property and while determining its market value in as much as the report was prepared prior to the institution of the case and was relevant only for making a reference under Section 47A(1) (d) of the Act, 1899. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as the plots were recorded as agricultural plots in the revenue records, therefore, the stamp duty on the sale deed dated 28.3.2013 had to be determined on the circle rates fixed for agricultural plots and not on circle rates fixed for residential plots. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no spot inspection was made by the Collector under Rule 7(3)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997) before passing the order dated 3.10.2013. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel has argued that from the exemplar annexed with the counter affidavit, it was evident that the market value of the plots was correctly determined by the Collector in his order dated 3.10.2013. It has been argued by the Standing Counsel that in view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the records.;