Point of Law: There is no error in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 33(5) read with Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. That he did. However, in that reply, he confined his defence to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the revenue.

2. Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 27.7.2017 passed by Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in Revision No. C-20171300423 filed by the petitioner, under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order of the Collector, Rampur, dated 30.12.2016 passed in proceedings under Section 33/47 of the Act (State vs. Harbhajan Singh). The Revision Authority has dismissed the aforesaid Revision and confirmed the deficiency of stamp duty determined together with interest and, penalty imposed by the Collector, Rampur, vide his order dated 30.12.2016. Thus, deficiency of stamp duty Rs. 12,36,800/- and interest liability @ 1.5% per month together with registration fee Rs. 100/- and penalty Rs. 12,36,700/- has been confirmed, on a photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013, described as agreement to sell.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are, the aforesaid proceedings under Section 33/47 of the Act arose against the petitioner on a complaint received by the Collector, Rampur, from one Khalid Hussain Khan and Sohail Khan, dated 28.5.2014. Therein, it was alleged, the complainants had executed an agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013 in favour of the present petitioner, for Arazi Nos. 352, 354, admeasuring 2.1450 Hectare and 0.575 Hectare respectively, for a sum of Rs. 6,17,40,000/-.

4. Acting on that complaint and a photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013, a report dated 05.7.2014 was submitted by the Assistant Collector Stamp. On that, the Collector, Rampur issued notice (to the petitioner), dated 15.5.2015 requiring him to produce the original of the document/instrument dated 12.11.2013 before the said authority, on or before 3.6.2015. The petitioner did not produce the document but raised written objection dated 18.2.2015. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

5. By means of that objection, the petitioner objected - the proceedings initiated by the Collector, Rampur, were without jurisdiction. He relied on the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act and stated that the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell dated 12.11.2013, had not been received in evidence by any Court or authority. Also, the same had not been produced and it had not come into possession of any government authority, in performance of its function.

6. By means of paragraph 6 of those objections, the petitioner further objected, the alleged photocopy of the document dated 12.11.2013 bore photocopies of signatures of only two persons out of five who may have executed/signed the original deed, if any. Therefore, there was neither any agreement to sell nor any agreement had been executed. In paragraph 6 of the objection, the petitioner further disputed that the agreement to sell had not been executed nor proven in evidence nor presented for registration. Photocopy of such incomplete document was not an instrument. Therefore, the proceedings be dropped.

7. At the same time, in paragraph 8 of the objections, the petitioner further stated, he was a victim of fraud. He had lodged a FIR against the complainants who had misled the government authorities to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner, based on a photocopy of the document allegedly dated 12.11.2013. In that, the petitioner further submitted that the complainants had been paid Rs. 30,00,000/- by the petitioner, though no transfer of property took place.

8. The Collector, Rampur, rejected the objections and determined deficiency of stamp duty (together with interest), registration fee and imposed penalty, as noted above. That order has been confirmed in Revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, undisputedly, no document h