JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

Heard Mr.G.M.Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Devendra Mohan Shukla as well as Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.08.2002 impounding sale deed dated 12.08.1985 executed in favour of petitioner, under Section 33 of the Indian STAMP ACT ,1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899). Also under challenge is order dated 17.02.2003 rejecting petitioner's preliminary objections regarding maintainability of proceedings under the Act of 1899. Further prayer for quashing entire proceedings initiated under Sections 33 /40 of the Act of 1899 has also been sought.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner by means of an unregistered instrument of transfer dated 12.08.1985. It is submitted that subsequently a suit for declaration under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1950) was filed by petitioner and registered as Case No.87. It is submitted that aforesaid suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2002 whereafter an application for recall was filed and by means of order dated 20.08.2002, the initial judgment and order dated 17.05.2002 was recalled. It is submitted that proceedings thereafter ensued in aforesaid declaration suit but he does not have any instructions with regard to its current status.

4. It has been submitted that in the meantime since judgment and decree dated 17.05.2002 was passed on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 12.08.1985, the same was impounded under Section 33 of the Act of 1899 and an authenticated copy of the same was forwarded to the authority concerned by means of reference order dated 09.08.2002 whereafter proceedings under Section 47-A read with Sections 33 and 40 of the Act were instituted against petitioner numbered as Case No.318/343/2002. It is submitted that a preliminary objection was filed by petitioner with regard to maintainability of aforesaid proceedings primarily on the ground that such proceedings cannot be initiated after a period of four years from the date of execution of the deed as provided in proviso to Section 33 (5) of Act of 1899. Second ground taken in the objections was that since the petitioner did not derive any benefit from aforesaid deed, stamp duty even otherwise was not payable. Third objection taken was that in referral order dated 09.08.2002, the deficiency of stamp duty has been wrongly indicated since valuation as per year 2002 was recorded instead of valuation as on the date of execution of the instrument.

5. It is submitted that aforesaid submissions as raised by petitioner has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 17.02.2003 primarily on the ground that limitation of four years for initiation of proceedings from the date of execution of the instrument would not be applicable in the present case since the instrument after execution was never presented before any authority and was kept hidden by petitioner and as such limitation would be applicable only from the date of presentation of document. The order also states that since the document was produced only in year 2002, there is no error in the valuation recorded taking year 2002 as the year for indicating deficiency in stamp duty.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in passing impugned order, the authority concerned has come to an erroneous conclusion particularly with regard to applicability of limitation period since such a limitation has been clearly indicated in Section 33 of the Act under which the document itself was impounded and therefore no cogent reason has been indicated in impugned order for inapplicability of limitation period. It is also submitted that no reason at all has been indicated for taking the valuation of deed with effect from the year 2002 and not from the date of its execution in August, 1985.