IMPORTANT POINT
Notices lacking specific details regarding deficiencies in Stamp Duty violate principles of natural justice, rendering recovery orders invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi and Sri Sant Prasad Singh Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. Writ C No. 8666 of 2024 has been filed challenging validity of an order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District- Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 1226 of 2022, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereby a deficiency of Rs.39,080/- in payment of Stamp Duty and Rs.7,240/-in payment of registration fee has been imposed regarding Document No. 1549/2022. Besides ordering for recovery of the amount of deficiency in payment of Stamp Duty and registration fee, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed and the entire amount has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, bearing Case No. 581 of 2024, which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and the petitioner has challenged validity of the aforesaid order also.

3. Writ C No. 8680 of 2024 has been filed challenging validity of an order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District - Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 1228 of 2022, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereby a deficiency of Rs.1,81,100/- in payment of Stamp Duty and Rs.36,220/- in payment of registration fee has been imposed regarding document no. 1548/2022. Besides ordering for recovery of the amount of deficiency in payment of Stamp Duty and registration fee, a penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed and the entire amount has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, bearing Case No. 579 of 2024, which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and the petitioner has challenged validity of the aforesaid order also.

4. Common questions of facts and law are involved in both the Writ Petitions and, therefore, both the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. As the petitions are proposed to be decided without going into the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the parties have consented for final disposal of the petition without filing of counter affidavits.

5. Case Nos.1226 of 2022 and 1228 of 2022, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 were instituted on the basis of two similarly worded notices dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ambedkar Nagar to the petitioner stating that sale deeds have been executed in favour of the petitioner and it had come to light that there is deficiency in payment of the sale deeds. The petitioner was asked to appear on 14.10.2022 and submit her objections along with evidence.

6. The petitioner submitted detailed objections in response to the aforesaid two notices and thereafter the impugned orders have been passed.

7. Sri. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had purchased three separate plots of land through three separate sale deeds executed on 02.07.2022. Immediately after execution of the sale deeds, the petitioner came to know that the sale deeds had been executed by some impostor. The petitioner filed a First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 0092 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station-Maharua, District- Ambedkar Nagar on 18.07.2022. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted in that case. The petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the three sa