The report must provide necessary details to classify a building as a commercial establishment, and market value determination should be in accordance with the law.

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. A sale-deed dated 15.6.2004 was executed in favour of the petitioner for an area of 800 square feet in Plot No 90/2. Stamp duty was paid by the petitioner on the said sale-deed representing that the plot was vacant and no construction existed on it. Subsequently, a report dated 1.10.2004 was submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Itwa stating that a commercial building existed on the plot and the market value of the plot was approximately Rs. 6,000/-per square feet, and therefore, the property in the sale-deed dated 15.6.2004 was under valued by the petitioner and there was a deliberate attempt by the petitioner to evade payment of stamp duty. On the aforesaid report dated 1.10.2004 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Case No. 13/2006 was registered under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') before the Additional Collector, Siddharthnagar, i.e., respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Collector') and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid case. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating that no constructions existed on the plot. However, it appears from the records that after submitting his reply, the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the Additional Collector and consequently the Additional Collector vide his order dated 5.5.2006, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar held that the property in the sale-deed dated 15.6.2004 was under valued and there was a deficiency of Rs. 43,200/-in payment of stamp duty. The deficiency in payment of stamp duty was calculated by the Collector on the market value of the property calculated according to the method prescribed in Rule 5(c)(ii) of the Rules, 1997, i.e., the method applied for calculating the minimum value of a commercial building. In his aforesaid order, the Additional Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 43,200/-on the petitioner and directed that the aforesaid amount alongwith an interest at the rate of 1.5% per month be recovered from the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Collector to recall the order dated 5.5.2006, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 28.8.2006. Against the orders dated 5.5.2006 and 28.8.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, petitioner filed Appeal No. 178/2006 before the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Commissioner'), which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 1.12.2006. The orders dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Additional Collector and 1.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner have been challenged in the present writ petition.

2. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Additional Collector and consequently the order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the appellate authority are contrary to law inasmuch as the Additional Collector was liable under Rule 7(3) of Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property), Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1997') to himself inspect the property after the petitioner had submitted his reply denying the correctness of the report of the Sub-Registrar. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Sub-Registrar was vague and no reliance could have been placed on the same by respondent No. 3 inasmuch as in his report dated 1.10.2004, the Sub-Registrar had not stated the incidents necessary to conclude that the construction existing on the plot was within the definition of a commercial building, and therefore, the Additional Collector had erred in law in relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar while determining the market value of the property treating the alleged construction existing on the plot as a commercial establishment. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that for the aforesaid reasons, the o