A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) -The petition was initially directed against the order dated 13-9-83 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Agra, (ADM for short) cancelling an earlier order dated 28-2-83 passed by his predecessor upon a reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Agra, under section 47-A of the Stamp Act in respect of a sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration. By the said order dated 13-9-83 the ADM had also directed the Tahsildar, Agra, to make a spot inspection and submit a report with regard to the valuation of the building covered by the sale deed.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY during the pendency of this petition the ADM passed another order on 27-4-84 (stated to be exparte against the petitioner) imposing additional stamp duty and penalty amounting respectively to Rs. 32,550/- and Rs. 1,62,750/- on the ground that the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- set forth in the sale deed was less than the market value of the building in question. By means of an amendment application the petitioner has brought this order also under challenge. As the petition is succeeding on a short ground, we do not propose to set out the facts in detail. The essential facts, however, material for the disposal of the petition are these. On the basis of a registered agreement for sale dated 6-6-80 in respect of building no. 6/3 Galibpura (Rakabganj Ward), Agra, a sale deed on general stamp of Rs.15,750/- was executed by the owners Mrs. Lila Phillips on 8-12-82 in favour of the petitioner, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The same day it was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Agra, who admitted the sale deed and made the necessary endorsements thereon, fixing 31-12-82 for the return of the sale deed. So far it was plain sailing for the petitioner. The trouble started just before he was to receive back the sale deed after registration, with Sri Hardwar Dube the tenant in occupation, filing what has been described as a complaint before the Sub- Registrar on 8-12-82 alleging that the property had been undervalued. Upon this complaint a notice was issued to the petitioner stating that a reference no. 12 dated 8-12-82 had been made by the Sub-Registrar under section 47-A of the Stamp Act through the District Registrar to the Additional Collector (Stamp and Registration) Agra. The petitioner appeared in response to this notice and contested the claim of Sri Hardwar Dube. Thereupon by the order dated 28-2-83 the ADM exercising the powers of the Collector under section 47-A of the Stamp Act, answered the reference in favour of the petitioner holding that the complainant could not furnish any solid material in support of his allegation that the consideration shown in the sale deed did not represent the true valuation of the property. He further observed in the order that the monthly rent payable in respect of the building was Rs. 70/- and that the same rent was also shown in the municipal assessment. Consequently the minimum market value of the property forming the subject matter of the sale deed calculated according to Rule 341 (iii) of the U. P. Stamp Rules, 1942 worked out to Rs. 21,000/- whereas the amount shown in the sale deed was Rs. 1,50,000/-. With these findings, the ADM directed that the document be sent to the Sub- Registrar for being registered. Thereupon the Sub-Registrar started completing the formalities for the return of the document. However, before the document could be returned to the petitioner, another lawyer, namely, Sri Nathulal Tanwar, Advocate appeared on the scene with the objection that the property had been undervalued and that he was himself prepared to offer Rs. 2,50,000/- for the same. Upon this objection, the ADM issued a notice to the petitioner in April, 1983 asking him to appear before him on the date mentioned therein. The petitioner put in appearance and filed an interim objection on 18-4-83 questioning the jurisdiction of the A.D.M. to reopen the proceedings, the matter having already been adjudicated and the valuation determined under section 47-A. by the predecessor of the present incumbent acting as the ADM by the order dated 28-2-83. The ADM ignored the petitioner's objection and passed the order dated 13-9-83 cancelling the previous order dated 28-2-83 and calling for a report from the Tahsildar, Agra, regarding the valuation of the disputed building. No reasons have been disclosed in this order why the ADM was cancelling/ recalling the order dated 28-2-83. Nor has any provision been cited in the order acting under which the earlier order was being reviewed.
(3.) HAVING heard Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, we have not the slightest doubt that the order dated 13-9-83 is entirely without any jurisdiction. As mentioned above, the Sub-Registrar had made a reference upon the objection of Sri Hardwar Dube through the District Registrar who made the following endorsement upon the order passed by the Sub-Registrar making the reference- "Forwarded to Collector, Agra. Sd. Illigible. District Registrar. 28-2-83". The referenee is expressly headed as "determination of market value and levy and its utilization under section 47-A of the Act". It is addressed to the Collector, Agra, through the District Registrar, Agra. Under section 47-A of the Stamp Act the Collector has been authorised either upon a reference to determine the market value of a property covered by an instrument of conveyance where the market value of the property as set forth in such instrument is found to be less than the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under the Act or where the Collector has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. By means of a notification issued by the State Government on 15-2-79 every Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has been appointed to be the Collector for purposes of the Stamp Act. That is how the matter came before the ADM upon the reference made by the Sub Registrar under section 47-A. It was in exercise of this power that the ADM had determined the valuation of the property and come to the conclusion that the consideration set forth in the sale deed was not less than the market value of the property even according to the rules framed under the Stamp Act. The ADM has observed in his order dated 28-2-83 that Sri Hardwar Dube has failed to substantiate his claim that the market value of the property was Rs. 2,00,000/-. This determination by the ADM fell squarely within the purview of section 47-A (2) which provides :- "47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc. if undervalued, how to be dealt- with- (1) ...... (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if such registering officer while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (3) ...... (4) ......;