AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard &
decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 1854 of 2016 are being considered.
In these four writ petitions, State of Uttarakhand has challenged the judgment & order dated 18.01.2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Stamp
Revision No. 08 of 2015-16, Stamp Revision No. 09 of 2015-16, Stamp Revision No. 10 of 2015-16 & Stamp Revision No. 11 of 2015-16.
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1854 of 2016 has been filed by State of Uttarakhand against the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by Board of Revenue,
Uttarakhand in Stamp Revision No. 08 of 2015-16.
Respondent purchased a plot of land in Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. On 19.06.2014, the sale deed was presented for registration before
Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar referred the sale deed to the Collector Stamp/A.D.M. (F & R) with the remark that stamp duty paid appears to be
insufficient. Ultimately, A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Dehradun passed an order dated 14.10.2015, in which he found the stamp duty deficient by
Rs. 3,03,250/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,03,500/- (total Rs. 4,06,750/-). The said order was challenged by the respondent before Board of
Revenue, Uttarakhand by filing Stamp Revision No. 08 of 2015-16.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the dispute is regarding value of the land. According to Sub-
Registrar, the land in question is situate within an industrial estate and it is at a distance of less than 50 mtrs. from Chakrata-Dehradun Highway,
therefore, value of the said land is much higher than what was indicated in the sale deed, therefore, the stamp duty paid by the respondent was
deficient. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, was that the value of the land has been correctly assessed and there is no deficiency in
stamp duty on the sale deed.
From the order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) on 14.10.2015, it is apparent that he had inspected the land on
26.09.2015. Based on the inspection, learned A.D.M. (F & R) had recorded a finding that the land is part of an industrial estate and there are
industries set up on the adjoining plots.
Learned Board of Revenue, however, has set aside the judgment & order passed by A.D.M. (F & R) on the ground that inspection made by
A.D.M. (F & R) was behind the back of the revisionist (respondent herein).
The view taken by learned Board of Revenue is correct, as inspection by A.D.M. (F & R) was required to be made in presence of the revisionist
(respondent herein) and opinion formed by A.D.M. (F & R) during inspection, which was made in the absence of the affected party, cannot form the
sole basis for recording a finding that the sale deed was undervalued and stamp duty was deficient. Thus, to that extent, learned Board of Revenue
was justified in interfering with the judgment & order rendered by A.D.M. (F & R).
Learned Standing Counsel submits that since the judgment rendered by A.D.M. (F & R) was interfered with only on the ground that inspection was
not made in the presence of the respondent, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Board of Revenue to remand the matter to A.D.M. (F & R) to
decide the matter afresh, after inspecting the land in question in the presence of the parties.
This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned Standing Counsel. Once a judgment rendered by A.D.M. (F & R) is set aside on the
ground that inspection was made by him in the absence of the affected party, then the Board of Revenue ought to have remanded the matter back for
decision afresh, after making inspection in the presence of the parties. Learned Revisional Court has not considered the question as to whether stamp
duty paid by the respondent on the sale deed was sufficient or not. Since the A.D.M. (F & R) had returned a finding that stamp duty paid is deficient,
therefore, while setting aside the order passed by A.D.M. (F & R) on the ground that respondent was not present during inspection, the Board of
Revenue ought to have remanded the matter to learned Court below for decision on merits.
In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by Board of Revenue and also the order dated
14.10.2015 passed by learned A.D.M. are set aside. Stamp Case No. 21 of 2014-15, Stamp Case No. 23 of 2014-15, Stamp Case No. 20 of 2014-15,
Stamp Case No. 22 of 2014-15 shall stand restored to the file of A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Dehradun, who shall decide the said cases afresh,
after inspecting the land in question in presence of both the parties.