AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly dismissing the appeal No. 32/28 of 2004-05 filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the A.D.M. (Finance) dated 28.7.2004.
The petitioner executed an instrument dated 5.5.2003 and paid a stamp duty on it of a sum of Rs. 98,200/-. However the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground that the petitioner had short paid the stamp duty. The petitioner filed objections on 1.9.2003 in which it is stated that the petitioner had paid stamp duty according to the circle rate.
The A.D.M. (Finance) passed an order by which he imposed deficiency to the extent of Rs. 78,800/- and penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal has also been dismissed.
It is the petitioner''s case that the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of an inspection report which was filed ex parte against the petitioner. However even if the inspection report is not taken into account, the instrument registered by the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
The instrument reveals that the property in dispute is situate in Village Jalalpur in Shahjahanpur. The State has filed a counter affidavit and in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is being clearly stated by the State that the property in dispute situate in Khasra No. 107 which is near the abadi area, which has two trees of the sesam and three trees of neem on the property in question and also that the circle rate which has been applied by the Collector is Rs. 4 lacs per acre upto 150 meters from the road.
The market value of the petitioner''s land has been assessed by appreciating it by 30% at the Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre as this land was in the special class at the relevant time. The rate list of the relevant time has also been appended is Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in which he has simply denied the Inspection note but has not denied either the situation or site of the property in question nor has denied the applicability of the circle rate which has been referred in the Annexure CA- 2.
Thus it stands admitted to the petitioner that the Village Jalapur is located near the abadi land in Shahjahanpur and the circle rate has applied by the State is also admitted to them.
In view of the admissions made by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the two authorities appear to be just and reasonable. The penalty imposed by the two authorities is also minimal and that is also justified as the petitioner had not faithfully stated in the instrument the correct market value of the land in question, even if in its objection, which state that the circle rate had been paid. The impugned orders are confirmed.
The writ petition is dismissed as above. No costs.