B.K.Roy and R.K.Singh, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the Order dated 29.5.1992 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Pargana Adhikari, Banda in Case No. 225 of 1991, under Section 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act (as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition).
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order and other documents shows following facts : (i) Pursuant to inquiry and report, a notice was issued to the petitioner who had purchased the land vide deed dated 10.7.1988 executed by Avanindra Nath Gupta. Ratindra Nath Gupta and Abhinendra Nath Gupta by getting it affirmed before A.D. Singh. Notary, Banda to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 24,086 (Rs. 2,175 on account of deficiency of the stamps. Rs. 161 on account of registration fee and Rs. 21,750 towards penalty) be not realised from him. (ii) Upto 25.5.1992 on every date the petitioner prayed for grant of time to file objection but deliberately he filed no objection which proves his intention for not making payment and to keep the case deliberately pending. (iii) On 25.5.1992 the petitioner by filing his objection disowned the deed and pressed to summon Avanindra Nath Gupta and others who had executed the deed, which was unjustified. (iv) Even though the petitioner after constructing a house on the land covered by the deed is residing therein yet he has disowned the deed. (v) The petitioner wants to mislead the Court in order to save him from payment of deficit stamps. (vi) The petitioner has not adduced any concrete proof to support his objection, his house and his plot so as to confirm disowning of the deed and thus, his disowning is wholly incorrect and untrue. (vii) Accordingly, realisation of the deficit stamp fee and penalty will be justified. The Submissions :
(3.) Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended as follows : (i) Under Section 47A of the Act, penalty could not be imposed as held by a three Judges Special Bench of the Court in Girijesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P., 1984 ALJ 1604. (ii) Once the petitioner disowned the document, it was incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to have summoned the executants of the deed and then determined the question as to whether the petitioner was claiming under the document or not and finally should have dropped the proceedings. Our Findings :;