SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Sale-deed dated 15.6.2006 of a residential flat was executed in favour of the petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- and requisite stamp duty was paid on the consideration amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-, which was more than than the minimum value fixed by the Collector for the area. The minimum value fixed by the Collector for the area was Rs. 8,36,100/-. However, a report dated 28.8.2008 was submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District-Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.M.') reporting that the market value of the flat was more than the consideration amount and value recorded in the sale-deed and was also more than the minimum value of the area fixed by the Collector, and therefore, it was recommended that a case be registered calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficiency in stamp duty. On the aforesaid report of the A.D.M., Case No. 99/2008-09 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered and the petitioner appeared in the same disputing the contents of the report of the A.D.M. However the Additional Collector, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 22.12.2008 determined the market value of the property as Rs. 13,75,000/- and consequently held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 37,500/- in payment of stamp duty. The order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ghaziabad was challenged by the petitioner under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 through Appeal No. 37/2008-09, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut, i.e., respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 1.4.2009. The orders dated 1.4.2009 passed by respondent No. 1 and 22.12.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned orders dated 1.4.2009 passed by respondent No. 1 and 22.12.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 shows that the aforesaid orders have been passed relying on the report dated 28.8.2008 and on the ground that the petitioner was not able to produce any evidence to controvert the contents of the aforesaid report. A reading of the report dated 28.8.2008 submitted by the A.D.M. shows that the aforesaid report was not prepared relying on any objective factor but merely on hearsay, and therefore, could not have been relied upon by the respondent authorities in determining the market value of the property. Further, as held by this Court in paragraph No. 31 in Kashi Nath Upadhyay v. Commissioner, Varanasi and others 2015 (127) RD 627, the burden to prove that the market value of the property was more than the minimum rate fixed by the Collector was on the respondents and not on the petitioner. The respondents have illegally held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty merely relying on the report dated 28.8.2008 and on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to produce any evidence to controvert the contents of the report submitted by the A.D.M.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.12.2008 and the consequential appellate order dated 1.4.2009 upholding the order dated 28.8.2008 are without any evidence and the said orders reflect non-application of mind on the part of the concerned revenue authorities.;