Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:924 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000026 of 1999 Petitioner :- Smt. Jasmin Khan Respondent :- Commissioner Faizabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.A.Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Chief Standing Counsel Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard Sri Aftab Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent - State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of Commissioner dated 15.01.1998, order dated 27.01.1996 passed by respondent No.2 and notice dated 18.09.1995 contained as Annexures 1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner along with respondent No.3 purchased a land in Rupees One Lac and paid the stamp duty of Rs.1,86,500/-. Without any report or inquiry, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 for deficiency of stamp duty. On 18.09.1995, the petitioner raised objection regarding same stating that stamp duty has been paid correctly. Respondent No.2 without any specific finding on the basis of P.W.D. rate, passed the order regarding deficiency in stamp duty. The petitioner filed an appeal / revision against order dated 27.01.1996 before respondent No.1. On 15.01.1998, respondent No.1 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 4. Assailing the impugned order, submission of learned counsel for the peitioner is that under Section 47(A)(3) of the Act, the Collector is the authority. On receipt of reference under sub section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 47 (A) or under Rule 344, 345 or 346, the Collector shall issue a notice to the executant or such other person, as may be liable to pay the duty and require him to show cause within a period of 30 days from the receipt of such notice. Why proceeding should not be started for determining the actual market value of the property. On receipt of written reply, or if no such reply is received within time specified, the Collector shall proceed accordingly. 5. In view of above, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner (Stamp), Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) or the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) is the referring authority as per aforesaid provision and the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), therefore, it is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. In reply to the supplementary affidavit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed reliance upon a notification issued on 05.03.1980, whereby it has been provided that under Section 6(A) of the principal Act in sub Section (3) for the word Chief Inspector of Stamp, the word Commissioner of Stamp shall be substituted and on the said basis his submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) is just and valid and does not suffer from any illegality. It has been further submitted that under sub Section (9) of Section 2, it has been provided that the Collector includes Deputy Commissioner. 7. Rebutting the submission made by learned Additional CSC, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no amendment under Section 47(A)(3) of the Act that the Commissioner (Stamp), Deputy Commissioner (Stamp) and Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) shall be referring authority to the Collector. It is also pointed out that in Section 2(9) it has been provided that the Collector means Deputy Commissioner, but it has not been provided that Deputy Commissioner (Stamp). 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record. 9. It is admitted case of the parties that the order has been passed by Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), which is referring authority. Under Section 47(3), it has been provided that the Collector can initiate proceeding of deficiency in stamp by referring the matter to the Commissioner (Stamp). It is also admitted that the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), who is referring authority. The provisions contained at page 16 of supplementary counter affidavit indicates that in Section 6(A) of the principal Act in sub Section (3), the word Chief Inspector (Stamp), the word Commissioner (Stamp) shall be substituted. It does not refer that Commissioner (Stamp) will not be referring authority and having jurisdiction to pass order on the deficiency in stamp. 10. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be set-aside. 11. Accordingly, order of Commissioner dated 15.01.1998, order dated 27.01.1996 passed by respondent No.2 and notice dated 18.09.1995 contained as Annexures 1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. 12. The matter is remanded to the competent authority with a direction to pass appropriate order. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Adarsh K Singh Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench