Proper disclosure in the show cause notice and the necessity of spot inspection to determine the nature of the land are essential for proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

1. Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 10.12.2007 and 06.08.2008 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that he purchased an area of 0.0942 hectares out of Plot no. 2049-Kha from one Abdul Rahman through registered sale deed dated 9.10.2006. She also paid Rs. 31,500/- towards stamp duty on a valuation of the property at Rs. 3,93,000/-. Proceedings under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner on a complaint that the said Abdul Rahman has sold three portions of the same plot, two through sale deed dated 5.12.2005 and one through sale deed dated 7.6.2006 at residential rates, therefore, there was deficiency of stamp duty paid by the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2007 to which the petitioner submitted her written objections/reply. In her objections, she has stated that the land was agricultural land which was purchased by Abdul Rahman through auction and a portion of that land was purchased by the petitioner for agricultural purposes and that all around the property, there is agricultural work going on. In para 8 of her objections, she has clearly stated that there is no construction on the said plot of the land and it is lying vacant.

4. The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Ghaziabad, however, by the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 held that there was deficiency of stamp duty and has determined the market value of the property at residential rates of Rs. 2,000/- per square metre and has determined its market value at Rs. 18,74,000/- on which the stamp duty payable calculated is Rs. 1,68,400/- and after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 31,500/- the deficiency of stamp duty has been determined at Rs. 1,36,900/- plus Rs. 73,100/- as penalty which comes to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 1.5 % per month. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner preferred a stamp appeal which has also been rejected by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut upholding the order of the Additional Collector and reducing the penalty to Rs. 7,000/- instead of Rs. 73,100/-.

5. The submission of Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner first and foremost is that in the show cause notice issued on 31.01.2007 it was never disclosed to the petitioner as to what was the deficiency of stamp duty and on what material evidence this deficiency of stamp duty was to be calculated and therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to meet the allegation of the Additional Collector that the three portions of the same plot have been sold by Abdul Rahman at residential rates. However, the firm stand of the petitioner in her objection, Annexure-4 to the writ petition was that the land surrounding the property in question was being used for agricultural purpose and that even on the plot in question, there was no construction made and it was lying vacant and otherwise used for agricultural purpose. The submission is that the reference to the sale deed by way of exemplar has been referred to for the first time in the order of the Additional Collector without disclosing the same to the petitioner in the show cause notice.

6. From a perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that though notice has been issued on an allegation that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency of stamp duty but it has not been disclosed anywhere that as to how there was a deficiency of stamp duty and what was the material before the Additional Collector to come to the conclusion that there was deficiency of stamp duty. Therefore, without disclosing to the petitioner the material on the basis of which the market value of the property has been determined at residential rates, the petitioner had absolutely n