B.AMIT STHALEKAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 19.01.2004 and 17.06.2004 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899). Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the land in question being Khasra No.144 (M) situated in the Mission Compound, Village Pathanpura, Saharanpur was sold through a sale deed dated 10.01.1967 by the Board of Foreign Mission of Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. through their Attorney transferring and conveying all the piece and parcel of land and the premises and buildings and constructions situated thereon on land measuring 13228 sq. yds. situated in Saharanpur Municipal limits to M/s Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi. On 02.09.1998 M/s Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi agreed to sell, transfer and convey all their rights, title and interest in the land measuring 6000 sq. yds. for a total consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Fifty lacs only) in favour of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (petitioner herein). Thereafter a letter of possession was granted to the petitioner on 01.04.1999. Two sale deeds were executed by M/s Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. in favour of the petitioner. One sale deed was dated 28.02.2002 in respect of rear portion of the said property situated in Mission Compound abutting on Mission Road, Saharanpur, U.P. and the other sale deed was dated 30.03.2002 in respect of front portion of the said property facing Court Road, Saharanpur, U.P. with depth upto 30 ft. approximately from the Court Road. On an assumption that there was deficiency of stamp duty both sale deeds were referred by the Sub Registrar to the Collector (Stamp)/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), for adjudication and thereafter proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter the Collector (Stamp) by his order dated 19.03.2002 determined the deficiency of stamp duty and directed the sale deed to be registered on making good the deficiency of stamp duty and payment of penalty. The sale deed was thereafter duly registered on 21.03.2002. Similarly, the Collector (Stamp) by order dated 17.04.2002 assessed the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty in respect of the other sale deed and thereafter the sale deed was duly registered on 29.04.2002.
(2.) Aggrieved by the two orders the State Government preferred an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on 08.01.2004 invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1963) as there was a delay of more than 500 days in filing the appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Similar appeal was filed in respect of the other sale deed against the order of the Collector (Stamp) dated 17.04.2002. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by his order dated 19.01.2004 condoned the delay. The petitioner filed its objection raising the plea that the delay in filing of the appeal had been condoned ex parte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1963 had no application to proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 and therefore the delay could not have been condoned.
(3.) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority heard both the appeals together and held that there was merit in the submission of the respondent (petitioner herein) that section 5 of the Act, 1963 had no application to proceeding under the Act, 1899 but there was glaring and unprecedented example of gross evasion of stamp duty and therefore, there was justification in admitting the case. I have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and perused the documents on record. ;