IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Mathur, J.) :

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.1.2009 and 30.9.2009, passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner purchased agricultural land from one Smt. Durga Devi being Plot Nos. 103/277 and 104/028, situated at Mauja - Katghar, Lalganj by means of registered sale-deed dated 18.7.2008, for sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-. At the time of registration of sale-deed petitioner had paid Rs. 13,440/- as stamp duty for the agricultural land in question. On 12.9.2008, petitioner received notice regarding deficiency of Stamp Duty of Rs. 1,68,060/- with regard to land in question. On enquiry by the petitioner it was found Sub Registrar, Lalganj, Azamgarh by means of order dated 26.7.2008 has imposed deficiency in stamp duty on the ground that for a plot adjacent to the plots of the petitioner, stamp duty was paid on commercial rate and thus petitioner was also liable to pay stamp duty on commercial rate.

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner filed his objection to the notice dated 12.9.2008 on 13.10.2008, which was registered as Case No. 304/46, wherein petitioner stated that the land in question is agricultural and is being used as an agricultural land and hence stamp duty paid by the petitioner at the time of registration of sale-deed was appropriate and there is no deficiency in the same. The said case was dismissed ex-parte, without appreciating the evidence adduced by the petitioner upholding the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 1,68,060/- alongwith penalty of Rs. 3,37,120/- upon the petitioner alongwith 1.5% interest.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner on 23.2.2009 for recovery of Rs. 3,37,120/- from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Collector of Stamp, Azamgarh, petitioner preferred revision being Revision No. 50/A/09 - Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before Additional Commissioner - I, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, which was dismissed by means of order dated 30.9.2009.

6. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and have been passed without considering the entire material available on record. He submits that in all the revenue records the land in question has been registered as an agricultural land and the crops were standing on the said land when stamp deficiency proceedings were drawn against petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that no spot inspection was ever made by the authorities concerned nor any inspection memo is available on record.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned orders stating that for the land adjacent to the land of the petitioner stamp duty has been paid on commercial rate and hence petitioner is also liable to pay stamp duty on commercial rate.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the perusal of record it is evident that no spot inspection was made by the authorities before passing the impugned order imposing deficiency in stamp duty on the petitioner with regard to purchase of land by the petitioner. From the record it is evident that before passing the impugned orders no spot inspection has been made by the revenue authorities in order to know the actual position of the land. It is noteworthy that this fact has even been recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in his order dated 30.9.2009, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has