JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.

1. Heard Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed, inter alia, with the following prayers:-

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Merut Division, Meerut in appeal No. 15 of 2008-09 (Annexure No. 6) and order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Bulandshahar in Stamp Case No. 18 of 2006 (Annexure No. 4).

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not make any recovery in pursuance of impugned order according to law.”

3. From the record of the petition, it appears that on 19.6.2006 a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by Sri Parashuram and Smt. Premwati Devi in respect of a plot of land measuring 181.25. sq. meter in village Khwajapur Meerpur, Pargana Baran, Tehsil and District Bulandshshar for residential purpose. The stamp duty was, accordingly, paid and the deed was registered on 19.6.2006 itself. It is stated that a notice dated 31.7.2007 was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging evasion of stamp duty. A reply was filed by the petitioner on 19.9.2007 wherein allegation of under-valuation was denied. On 10.11.2007, a fresh spot inspection was conducted by the Tehsildar, who wrote in his report that the land in dispute was being used for residential purpose. However, an objection was filed by the petitioner to the report of the Tehsildar also. Thereafter, by means of impugned order dated 30.8.2008, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-respondent no.3, proceeded to hold that the land in question was of potential commercial usage in view of a report submitted by the Sub-Registrar and has assessed deficiency of stamp duty after calculating value of the property on the basis of minimum rates. The challenge to the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in an appeal under Section 56 of the Act being Appeal No. 15 of 2008-09 filed in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut met with the failure and the appeal was dismissed on 20.1.2009 by another order impugned.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice that has been enclosed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition is vague, lacking in material particulars, and is defective, inasmuch as it refers to a sale deed of 10.11.2004 which is not the sale deed by means of which the property in dispute was transferred to the petitioner. It is further contended that an exparte report of the Sub-Registrar has been relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without properly appreciating the report of the Tehsildar dated 10.11.2007 and without taking into account the objections raised by the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has sought to justify the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), but has not been able to dispute the fact that valuation has been done on the basis of assessment made on the circle rate and not on the market value. Learned Standing Counsel has also not been able to dispute the fact that the notice sent to the petitioner does not give correct date of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is ev