Kailashchandra Sharma vs Additional Collector And Ors

This special appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge had

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector (Stamp) on 15.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse on the face of itself.

The order of the learned Single Judge is not only contrary to the facts of the present case rather the same is also contrary to the provisions of the

Section 52A of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. So, it is not legally sustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge had wrongly observed that the Competent Authority in its order

dated 15.11.2016 considered the DLC rate which was prevalent at the relevant time after finding the property in question being used for commercial

purpose, whereas, the DLC rate and valuation of the property had been determined on the basis of report dated 29.06.2016. DLC rate has to be

determined according to the sale transaction dated 09.06.2010 and valuation of the property was determined for the vacant land as appellant was

owner of the said plot. It was in vacant condition and subsequently, sold to the Shri Chhittarmal Kumawat and Omprakash Kumawat who had sold it

to Girdhari Lal Gupta and Ramswaroop Gupta. After that they had sold said plot through registered sale deed dated 15.03.2013 to Shri Shyam Lal Jain

who had raised the construction over the plot and used it as commercial property. Therefore, appellant is not liable to pay the deficit amount, on the

valuation of the property, nature of which subsequently changed. Learned Single Judge had to consider these facts.

Learned Single Judge wrongly observed that revision petition had been remanded by the Tax Board vide order dated 28.05.2014 and it was incumbent

upon the parties to appear before the Collector and matter had to be agitated there. The party who was issued notice, did not appear. No fault could

be found with the order passed on 15.11.2016. The above observations were contrary to record because prior to passing of the impugned judgment

dated 28.05.2014, no notice was served upon the petitioner because after the sale of plot, petitioner had changed his address. He was residing in Plot

No.B-206, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur and no notice was served upon him. He had deposited the deficit Stamp Duty on 04.06.2010, so no liability

could be imposed on him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Additional District Collector wrongly determined the

valuation of said plot of Rs.1,01,61,060/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was violation of principles of natural justice, because prior to passing of the impugned

judgment dated 15.11.2016, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and no notice was served upon him in any manner. The Additional

Collector (Stamp) had totally ignored this fact that deficit Stamp Duty which was paid by appellant on 09.06.2010, when he was owner of the said plot,

the existing construction had been raised by the last purchaser Shyam Lal Jain, who could be held liable for the payment of any deficit Stamp Duty.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Additional Collector (Stamp) had no power to review its order. He further submitted that

he had filed an application before the Additional Collector for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 15.11.2016 but the same was dismissed in cursory

manner. Learned Single Judge had not considered these facts. So, this appeal be allowed and order of the learned Single Judge as well as the learned

Additional Collector (Stamp) be set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted following judgment Naresh Kumar & Ors. V. Government of NCT, Delhi reported in (2019) 9 SCC 416

for the support of his arguments.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and the

material available on record.

The learned Single Judge in its order clearly observed that the Additional Collector (Stamp) had not reviewed its previous order but he had decided

afresh the case after remand, from the Revenue Board. The learned Single Judge in its order held that the Competent Authority while exercising the

power u/s. 35 & 36 of the Act, had considered the DLC rate which was prevalent at relevant time and after finding that the property in question was

being used for commercial purposes, the Stamp Duty was accordingly determined. The learned Single Judge also observed that after remand of the

matter by the Tax Board, the Additional Collector (Stamp) had sent notices to all the parties concerned but they failed to appear. The appellant had

not submitted any bonafide reason for non-appearance before the learned Additional Collector (Stamp). So, he had rightly rejected the application for

setting aside ex parte proceedings.

In our considering opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In these circumstances, we do not find

any merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal as well as stay application are dismissed.