SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgement and orders dated 5.4.2004 and 21.8.2002 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Stamp Appeal No.59 of 2002-03 and by the Collector respectively.
(2.) The petitioner had bought plot no. 1123 area 4050 square meters in village - Pakbara, Tehsil and District - Moradabad for keeping agricultural equipments through a registered sale deed on 23.9.1999 for Rs. 4 lacs. On the complaint of one Mukul Kumar, a report was called for and the Tehsildar on 27.7.2000 submitted the same. The report clearly stated that the land in question was half a kilometer away from the abadi and that the value of the land was estimated at Rs. 4 lacs per acre. Relying upon that report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 29.8.2000 found a deficiency of Rs. 1 lac in the Stamp duty paid. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The State Government, however, filed a Revision against the order dated 29.8.2000 which was allowed on 18.4.2001. Thereafter, the Collector once again decided the matter on 21.8.2002 and found a deficiency of Rs. 7,23,400/- on the Stamp payable. Penalty of the same amount was imposed. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 25.4.2004. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:- I. Once, the Tehsildar, in his report dated 27.4.2000, had clearly stated that the land was a half kilometer away from the Abadi and the stamp duty was properly paid, then the Collector should not have changed his order. II. Even on the basis of the exemplars filed on behalf of the State, the land in question could not have been valued in the manner it had been valued by the Collector in the impugned order dated 21.8.2002. III. When the Tehsildar in his report had found that there was only 400 square meters of constructed area of which 100 square meters had a godown, 150 square meters had a constructed building and 150 square meter housed a clinic and that the rest of the portion was vacant agricultural land then the Collector had absolutely no basis to find subsequently that there was a construction of 780 square meters. The orders do not reveal that any fresh inspection was done in the presence of the petitioners after the initial inspection was conducted by the Tehsildar on 27.7.2000 and yet it was found that 780 square meter was constructed portion. The order also does not specifically state if the constructions were of before the execution of the sale deed or after it was executed. IV. The Collector has not given any finding of fact as to when exactly was the constructed portion made. Was it made before the sale deed was executed or was it constructed after the first report of the Tehsildar dated 27.7.2000. There is also no finding as to whether the Tehsildar's report dated 27.7.2000 was ever rejected. V. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it appeared from the order that there was some inspection report after the remand was made by the Commissioner wherein it was found that instead of 400 square meters of construction, 780 square meters were found to be constructed over the land in question. This report, learned counsel submits, was not made in the presence of the petitioners and also it was not clear from the record as to whether it had rejected the earlier report dated 27.7.2000. Therefore, it was not clear as to whether the constructions which had found mention were erected before the inspection dated 27.7.2000 or were they made on a date subsequent to 27.7.2000. VI. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was also no application of mind by the Collector. The land in question was 4050 square meters in area and if there was 780 square meters of construction on the property in question then the vacant area should have been 3270 square meters but the Collector, has after finding that the constructed area measured 780 square meters, found the unconstructed area on which deficiency in the stamp was imposed to be measuring 4050 square meters. This, therefore, totalled to 4830 square meters and , thus, learned counsel submits that the Collector had not applied his mind properly. Simply because there was a remand he had enhanced the deficiency in the concerned document. ;