Point of Law : It is incumbent upon the Collector while conducting the inquiry on initiation of a stamp case under Section 47A, to inspect the property in question in the presence of the parties and to consider their representation, if any, and then pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2003 passed by the Collector, Sitapur in Stamp Case No. 15 under Section 47A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act and also the order dated 09.05.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 114 of 2002-03 under Section 56 of the Stamp Act imposing recovery on the basis of deficiency in stamp duty and penalty upon the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a plot with area 1380 Square Feet which had two rooms, one Verandah, one kitchen and bathroom constructed on it with covered area of 435 Square Feet situated in Mohalla-Civil Lines, District-Sitapur through registered sale deed on 11.07.2002. Stamp duty was paid as per the Circle Rate List issued by the Collector at the time of the execution of the sale deed to the tune of Rs.43,200/- upon total valuation of Rs.4,31,737/-. The petitioner specifically mentioned in the sale deed the area which was covered by construction and the area which was lying open as plot appurtenant to it. Subsequently, on the basis of a report dated 04.12.2002 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Sitapur proceeding under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act was initiated, the Collector issued notice to the petitioner on 07.03.2003, the petitioner having come to know filed an application before the Collector for an spot inspection of the property in question as the earlier inspection had been carried out ex parte and the report clearly stated that no one was found and the house was found locked at the time of inspection. Such application remained pending. The petitioner was not residing in the house, she had bought as she was residing with her parents in Mohalla Rani Kothi, Buts Ganj, Sitapur.

4. After the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar dated 04.12.2002, another report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Sitapur on 05.05.2003 which was also ex parte as the house was found locked even at that time and measurement of covered area could not be carried out either by the Sub-Registrar or by the Naib Tehsildar. Based on such ex parte reports the Collector passed the order dated 02.08.2003 determining deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 6,850/- and also imposing maximum penalty which was four times of such deficiency amounting to Rs. 27,400 plus interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision under Section 56 wherein a specific ground was taken that the inspection was carried out ex parte and behind her back, however, the Additional Commissioner passed the order on 03.09.2003 directing the petitioner to deposit at least one third of the amount. The petitioner deposited Rs.11,897/- on 10.09.2003. On 05.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner passed an interim order staying rest of the recovery till disposal of the revision. The Revision was disposed of on 09.05.2005 by observing that at least two inspections were carried out of the property in question, one by the Sub-Registrar and other by the Naib Tehsildar. It was however not appreciated that both the inspections were ex parte and it was specifically mentioned in such report that house was found locked, therefore, no measurement of covered area could be done by the officer inspecting the property in question. The report was based on conjectures and surmises and it ought to have been rejected, however, the Additional Commissioner based his order rejected the Revision only on such report.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 7 (3)(C) of the U. P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, wherein the Collector is supposed to inspect the property after due notice to the parties to the instrument and then determine the market value.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 6 of his petition, wherein he has mentioned this fact that no inspection was carried out in the presence of the petition