SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri. Ashok Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner is the vendee in the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 executed in her favour whereby, amongst other plots, 1/5 share of plot no. 668 (total area 0.2140 hectare) was also sold to the petitioner. Subsequently, on report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the concerned Sub Registrar case no. D201514360031100/15 (State v. Pushpa Singh) , under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Jaunpur against the petitioner for alleged deficiency in payment of stamp duty. Notice in the aforesaid case was issued to the petitioner who appeared in the court and admitted her liability and agreed to pay the alleged deficiency. Consequently, relying on the report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), District-Jaunpur passed an order dated 09.04.2016 calculating the deficiency as Rs. 1,59,400/- and consequential penalty and interest were directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 09.04.2016 was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Varanasi Region, Varanasi by filing Stamp Revision No. C20171400634 of 2017 under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899. The aforesaid revision was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The orders dated 13.04.2017 and 09.04.2016 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) The report of the Sub-Registrar and the contents of the notice issued to the petitioner were not challenged by the petitioner before the court of Assistant Commissioner Stamp, District Jaunpur and through her application dated 07.04.2016, the petitioner had agreed to pay the reported deficiency in the stamp duty and it was stated by her that she did not want to contest the case. The order dated 09.04.2016 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar and the admission of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner can not now be permitted to challenge, in the writ petition, the correctness of the contents of the report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the Sub-Registrar and consequently the legality of the orders dated 09.04.2016 and 13.04.2017 passed on the basis of the aforesaid report. For the said reason, the challenge to orders dated 09.04.2016 and 13.04.2017 is rejected.;