JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Awadhesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. By this writ petition, quashing of an order dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.58 of 2008-09 under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899[Act] has been sought whereby deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.4,37,260/-and penalty alongwith interest have been imposed. Further challenge is to the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, whereby Appeal No.52 of 2008-09 filed by the petitioners under Section 56 of the Act, has been dismissed and the order of the Collector has been upheld.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners purchased an area of 278.42 sq. mts. of Plot No.66 bearing House No.128/3/27, Burhbur Machhariya, District Kanpur Nagar and on that plot, 60.5 sq. mts. of constructed area was present. The stamp duty at the rate of Rs.12,000/-per sq. mtr. was paid on a sale-deed dated 14.08.2008 executed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid property. The sale-deed was duly registered. A show cause notice dated 25.08.2008 was issued to the petitioners in which it was mentioned that there were 8 other shops over the property and as such the stamp duty paid was deficient. Objections supported by affidavit were filed by the petitioners and, thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 was passed by the Collector. Challenge to the order of the Collector dated 18.02.2009 met with failure on 23.11.2009.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the sale-deed was returned to the petitioners after registration, that reflected the satisfaction of the Sub-Registrar with regard to the amount of stamp duty paid and hence the proceedings that were initiated under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, were unwarranted. It is stated that the alleged inspection made on 08.09.2008 was an ex-parte inspection without giving notice to the petitioners and was made after 28 days of the execution of the sale-deed. Further, it has been stated that the so-called shops in question were constructed after the execution of the sale-deed and as such the finding recorded by the Collector regarding the existence of the shops cannot be sustained. It is stated that once the objections and affidavit were filed by the petitioners, the Collector was required to call for a fresh report or personally conduct a spot inspection of the property in question as mandated under Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997[Rules]. It has further been contended that the Collector totally overlooked the objections of the petitioners that the shops stated to be built over the property in question were made after the execution of the sale-deed which could have been duly verified by a spot inspection in the presence of the petitioners. Also is the contention that the valuation made by the Collector is based on an ex-parte report of the Sub-Registrar dated 23.09.2008 on the basis of the minimum rates fixed, whereas the Collector was required to make the valuation on the basis of the market rate.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has referred to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the spot inspection was done by the Sub-Registrar only 24 days after the execution of the sale-deed wherein the existence of 8 shops was specifically noticed and recorded, but, it is contended, there was no mention of those shops in the sale-deed and, therefore, the property in questi