Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) For getting a grant for opening a school the petitioner had mortgaged his property on 21.6.2005 in village- Majuri Bujurg, Nyay Panchayat - Puraini, Block - Salempur, District - Deoria, and had, in lieu thereof, been granted a financial assistant. This was done in pursuance of a policy of the State of U.P. promulgated by it for the development of education for girls. On the basis of a report of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) a case being Case No. 104 of 2005 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was instituted against the District Inspector of School( hereinafter referred to as 'the DIOS'), Sri V.P. Singh and a deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 69,900/- was found. A fine of Rs. 100/- was also imposed and it was provided that a simple interest of 1.5% per month would also have to be paid till the date of actual payment. This order was passed on 16.2.2006. Thereafter Sri V.P. Singh, the DIOS, who was a signatory in the mortgage deed on behalf of the Governor of the State of U.P. wrote to the manager of the institution i.e. the petitioner on 20.9.2008 directing him to deposit the amount which had been found due from him. He also gave an option to the petitioner to file an appeal. Being pressurized by the DIOS, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 3, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 29.1.2009 for the setting aside of the order dated 16.2.2006. However, this application came to be dismissed on 4.2.2009. Thereafter, Sri V.P. Singh, the DIOS, himself filed two appeals. One was against the order rejecting the application of the petitioner on 4.2.2009 and the other was against the original order dated 16.2.2006. Both the appeals were allowed on 5.2.2011. On 28.5.2013, upon remand, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) passed an order on the application of the State of U.P. that the petitioner be impleaded as an opposite party in the case as he was the person who was actually liable for paying the stamp duty as per the Stamp Act. Upon coming to know of the order dated 28.5.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed saying that a revision was in fact maintainable. Thereafter, a revision was filed by him which came to be dismissed on 30.7.2016.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.5.2013 and 30.7.2016.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Government Order dated 26.10.2005 no stamp duty over and above Rs. 100/- was payable in cases where property was mortgaged for the opening of schools for girls. He further submitted that the order dated 28.5.2013 could not have been passed in the teeth of the provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as the provisions in the Section are very clear that action could be initiated within four years from the date of the execution of the document on which duty was chargeable. As the learned counsel placed reliance on Section 47A(3) of the Act, the same is being reproduced here as under:- "47A(3). The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon: Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. [Explanation- The payment of deficit stamp duty by any person under any order of registering officer under sub-section (1) shall not prevent the Collector from initiating proceedings on any instrument under sub-section (3)] ";