The Collector must follow due process and provide notice before determining stamp duty; reliance on ex-parte inspections without evidence contravenes procedural laws.

JUDGMENT :

SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

1. Shri Surya Prakash & Shri Arsh Bugga, learned counsels for petitioner; Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha and Shri Mohd. Kasim, learned Standing Counsels for the State, arepresent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Collector, Barabanki in Case No. D20140412001297 under Section 47A / 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Case No. C2016040000510, under Section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:

"(i). Issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned orders dated 04.02.2016 & 24.05.2017 contained as annexure no.1 & 2 to this petition.

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount along with interest in pursuance of the impugned orders.

(iii). Issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper of the case."

4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, as have culled out from the pleadings available on record are that the petitioner purchased half portion of the plot of land having Gata No. 2311 measuring half (1/2) of the area 0.349 Hectare from one, Sri. Maneesh Kumar, on 24.06.2013. The boundary of plot no. 2311 is given as: East: Land of Hospital, West: Pond, North: Land of Mateen and others, South:Deva to Kurshi Road.

5. It is pleaded by the petitioner that at the time of registration of the Sale-Deed in respect of the aforesaid plot of land, the petitioner paid stamp duty @ Rs. 46,00,000/- (Rs. Forty Six Lacs only) per hectare. She also paid 150% excess cost as the land was within 100 meters from the residential area and is adjoining to the village. Thus, total value of the land as calculated was Rs. 20,53,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lacs Fifty Three Thousand only). Further, being a lady, the petitioner paid 4% stamp duty on the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only) and 5% stamp duty on the rest of the amount, accordingly, the total stamp duty paid was Rs. 92,650/- (Rs. Ninety Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only).

6. The Sub Registrar Fatehpur, based on a spot inspection, submitted its Report dated 20.08.2013 before the Assistant I.G. Stamp mentioning therein some deficiency of stamp duty. Accordingly, on the strength of the said Report, a case under section 47A / 33 of The Indian Stamp Act was registered as Case No. 42/(2013-14). Consequently, notice was issued to the petitioner, however, it is alleged in the writ petition that the same was never served upon the petitioner. The learned Collector, Barabanki (opposite party no.3)finally passed the order dated 28.07.2014 against the petitioner.

7. The Collector, Barabanki (opposite party no.3) vide the aforesaid order dated 28.07.2014 held that the plot of land is situated at Kursi Road and at present a saw-machine / Aara machine is stalled in the southern side of the plot of land. Further, some shops also exist on the south side road and a Primary Health Center is located in the eastern side of the said plot. As per the report, no agricultural activity was found on the spot, although, as per the Sale-Deed the plot of land was purchased by the petitioner as agricultural land but in view of the spot inspection report, stamp duty at commercial rate is liable to be determined. Accordingly, the Collector (opposite party no.3) vide or