Point of law: The language of Section 47 (4) is clear that the Collector/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) does not have any power to impose penalty in such proceedings. Under this provision only power vested in the Collector was to determine the market value of the property and if he finds that the duty paid on the instrument in question is less than that payable on the correct market value of the property, he may order that the difference may be realized from the party to the instrument.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Class/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj, Baharich and also the order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, rejecting his Appeal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased land of Gata No.522 ad-measuring 0.02 dec. situated in village Chakpihani, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, through a registered sale deed on 01.07.1995 and paid stamp duty @ Rs.15/-per sq. feet as per the circle rate of the area concerned. The sale deed was duly stamped and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Kaiserganj and the petitioner’s name was also recorded in the revenue records. In the month of November, 1999, the Ameen of Kaiserganj Tehsil approached him for depositing an amount of Rs.24,691/- towards deficiency in stamp duty and penalty in pursuance of the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj under the Stamp Act.

4. The petitioner inspected the file and after getting a certified copy of the order dated 19.07.1999, he preferred a Revision under Section 56 of the Stamp Act before the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the respondent no.2 has passed the ex parte order and at the time of spot inspection, the respondent no.2 has not given any information or notice to the petitioner nor any spot inspection report or memo was made available on record. The petitioner disputed the findings recorded by the respondent no.2 that the land in question was siutated 800 mtrs. from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the P.W.D. Map, the land was situated 1.6 kms. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road and stamp duty was paid according to the circle rate of the area in question.

6. It was submitted that under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, if the Collector after determination of the market value of the property, comes to the conclusion that its value has not been correctly set forth, he could only direct payment of deficiency in the amount of duty as a result of such determination, but he cannot impose any penalty on account of deficiency in Stamp Duty.

7. It has been submitted that respondent no.2 has determined the deficiency in stamp duty and has also imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of deficiency in Stamp Duty i.e. Rs.12,310.15/-. The deficiency in Stamp Duty + Penalty together amounted to Rs.24,691/-

8. It has been submitted by Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the Appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner all such grounds were taken but they were not considered and his Revision has been arbitrarily rejected only on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Act has been followed by the Assessing Authority and as per the rate of the area in question in respect of Rs.15/-per sq. feet., a duty of Rs.130/-per sq. feet was paid.

9. In pursuance of the orders impugned, the Tehsil Authorities had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner including taking steps to arrest him and also to auction the property in question. However, this Court as an interim measure had initially stayed the arrest of the petitioner and later on also stayed the recovery proceedings.

10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the content of annexure-2 that there is specific statement made therein that the purchaser was informed, but he failed to appear and that on-spot inspection was done of the property in question and it was found that agricultural activities were going on the plot and that it was situated only 800 mtrs. away from Hanuman Mandir Tiraha on Kaiserganj Huzoorpur road. The respondent no.2 has imposed the