Salil Kumar Rai,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) It transpires from the record that a sale-deed dated 16.8.2013 was executed in favour of the petitioner and stamp duty was paid on the said sale-deed after calculating the market value of the property representing it to be residential in nature. The Additional Commissioner (Stamp), District-Mathura, submitted a report dated 12.12.2014 stating that the property was situated in a commercial area and was being used for commercial purposes, and therefore, the stamp duty to be paid on the sale-deed was to be fixed after calculating the market value of the property treating it as commercial. On the said report Stamp Case No. 175/2013-14 under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the Court of Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Mathura, i.e, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Collector'). The petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the Additional Collector and the proceedings in the said case were held ex-parte against the petitioner. The Additional Collector after considering the evidence on record passed order dated 4.6.2014 holding that the property was commercial in nature and the sale-deed dated 16.8.2013 was insufficiently stamped and there was deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty. Consequently, the Additional Collector also imposed penalty on the petitioner and through his aforesaid order directed recovery of the deficiency in the stamp duty as well as the penalty imposed on the petitioner alongwith 1.5% interest per month.
(3.) The petitioner filed an application dated 23.9.2014 praying for recall of the order dated 4.6.2004 passed by Additional Collector. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 29.10.2014. The orders dated 4.6.2014 and 29.10.2014 passed by the Additional Collector were challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Appeal No. 2336/ 2014-15 on the ground that the order dated 4.6.2014 was passed by the Additional Collector without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the spot inspection was done without giving any notice to the petitioner and was, thus, violative of Rule 7(3)(c) of U.P. Stamp Valuation of Properties Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997'). The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, i.e., the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 10.8.2015 dismissed Appeal No. 2336/ 2014-15 filed by the petitioner. The orders dated 10.8.2015, 4.6.2014 and 29.10.2014 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.;