SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) A sale deed dated 10.10.2006 of a plot (area 45.78 sq. meter) was executed in favour of the petitioner and stamp duty was paid on the said sale deed representing the plot to be a vacant plot. The property was represented as a vacant plot in the map given at the foot of the sale deed. Stamp duty was paid on the sale deed computing it at the rates fixed for residential plots. On 11.10.2006, the Sub-Registrar inspected the plot and found that two shops existed on the aforesaid plot and therefore recommended that the market value of the property as well as the stamp duty to be paid on the sale deed had to be computed at the rates fixed for commercial plots. As a consequence of the said inspection by the Sub-Registrar, a reference dated 1.12.2006 was submitted before the Collector, Mathura and Case No. 121/2006-07 under section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Mathura, i.e., respondent no. 3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid case but the petitioner did not submit any objections or reply in response to the aforesaid show cause notice and also did not appear before respondent no. 3 to present his case. In view of the failure of the petitioner to appear in Case No. 121/2006-07, respondent no. 3, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar, held that the market value of the property as well as the stamp duty payable on the sale deed had to be computed at the rates fixed for commercial plots and consequently vide his order dated 29.10.2007 held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 74,200/- in payment of stamp duty. In his aforesaid order, the respondent no. 3 also imposed a penalty of Rs. 300/- on the petitioner and directed that the aforesaid amount along with an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month be recovered from the petitioner. On 16.3.2011, the petitioner filed a recall application before respondent no. 3 praying for recall of the order dated 29.10.2007 pleading that he had not been served any notice in Case No. 121/2006-07. The respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 9.5.2011 dismissed the recall application filed by the petitioner after perusing the Tehsildar's report which showed that notice had been properly served on the petitioner and the petitioner had refused to receive the same. Aggrieved by the orders dated 29.10.2007 and 9.5.2011 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed Revision Nos. 19 of 2011 and 20 of 2011 under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 before the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra i.e. respondent no. 2 which were dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 31.10.2011. The orders dated 29.10.2007 and 31.10.2011 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that notices were not properly served on the petitioner as required under Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997') and as the order dated 29.10.2007 was passed by respondent no. 3 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner it was violative of principles of natural justice. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no shop existed over the plot purchased by the petitioner and respondent no. 3 had erred in computing the stamp duty payable on the sale deed at the rates fixed for commercial plots without the land having been declared a commercial land by the authorities. It has been argued that in view of the aforesaid illegalities, the orders dated 29.10.2007 and 31.10.2011 are contrary to law and liable to be set-aside by this Court. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 19.5.2011 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 6540 of 2006 (Peeyush Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others), Krishna Kumar and Ors. v. Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Agra and Anr. 2005 (1) CRC 476 and Smt. Kusum Lata Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2010 (1) CRC 309.;