Procedural fairness in addressing objections and the importance of giving the petitioner an opportunity to object to the evidence used in assessing stamp duty deficiency.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Agra Division Agra in Stamp Revision No. C-201601001377/16 (Atul Agrawal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. By that order the revision authority has rejected the revision filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 16.6.2016 passed by the Collector, assessing stamp deficiency.

3. Essential facts giving rise to the present petition are that the land in question bearing plot No. 157 Khata No. 109 admeasuring 0.337 Hectare at Mauja Girdharpur was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.2.2008 for a total consideration of Rs. Two lakhs. Stamp duty was paid on that conveyance valuing the document at Rs. Ten lakhs. Six years thereafter, acting on a complaint, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner to assess deficiency of stamp duty etc. The petitioner objected to the same. He relied on declaration made under Section 144 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act'), dated 21.1.2008. Also, he claimed that the land was being used for agricultural purpose only and that it had always been used as such. The Collector relied on the spot inspection carried on 16.6.2016. Relying on that, he formed an opinion that the land in question was surrounded by residential colony and that it was bounded by boundary pillars and boundary walls. Also referring to the fact that on 03.4.2006, a declaration under Section 143 of the 1950 Act had been made declaring the land non agricultural, the same was treated to be such. In doing that the Collector further observed that the declaration dated 21.1.2008 made under Section 144 of the 1950 Act declaring the same land to be agricultural was obtained only twenty days before the execution of the sale deed.

4. In revision, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition, in ground Nos. 10 and 13, it has been specifically stated as below:-

"10. Because there was no construction of any kind, in the land in question at the time of purchase the land in question by the revisionists. The land in question has been continuously used only for agricultural purposes. The report submitted by the Dy. Registrar is totally incorrect, baseless, collusive and misconceived.

...

13. Because it is further proved that the Dy. Registrar has not visited or made the alleged spot inspection within the knowledge or under intimation of the revisionist. The learned Addl. Collector has erred in placing undue reliance upon the said report which is ex parte and inadmissible in evidence as held by the Hon'ble High Court in Anupam Infrastructures etc. v/s State of U.P., 2010 (111) RD 246, Smt. Amir Jahan v/s State of U.P., 2012 (111) RD 485 and in other cases."

5. The revision authority has also adopted the same reasoning as has been given by the Collector and rejected the revision.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place there is no discussion of the grounds No. 10 and 13 of the revision, as noted above. Second, it cannot be denied that the report dated 16.6.2016 was prepared by the Collector on the date of the order itself.

7. Therefore, it is self apparent that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to object to the same. That, coupled with the fact that the proceedings were instituted six years after the execution of the sale deed on the basis of the report though no constructions were found existing. It appears that the revision authority has not dealt with the objection.

8. In view of the above, the revision order cannot be sustained. It is set aside. The matter is remitted to the revision authority to pass fresh order dealing with the grounds raised in the revision. That exercise may be completed within two months from t