IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 339 (M/S) OF 2006 Harminder Singh S/o Sri Swarn Singh R/o Hall Dhampur, Tehsil Dhampur District Bijnore …..….Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital 3. Additional Commissioner, Stamp, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Sub Registrar, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. ……….. Respondents 05.04.2006 Sri Harwansh Singh Dhollon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Anurag Bisaria and Sri Harwansh Singh Dhillon Learned Counsels for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.10.2005 passed in the Revision passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. Briefly stated the petitioner has received a notice dated 04.08.1992 from the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) on 28.08.1992 for appearance and to give reply by 27.08.1992 with regard to the alleged stamp duty in the sale deed 23.08.1990. However, the matter was decided ex-parte on 19.08.1992. Against the said order petitioner has filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Nainital for recalling the order dated 19.08.1992 and for repression of suit No.52/433 1990-91. On 25.04.2000, recall application of the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.04.2000, the petitioner preferred the Revision before the Commissioner, Nainital, the said revision was also dismissed by order dated 21.10.2005. The Revisional Court has observed that a notice by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) was rightly sent regarding the deficiency of stamp duty and as such the revision has been dismissed. I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the A.D.M. as well as by the Commissioner while dismissing the revision so far as imposition of stamp duty is concerned. So far as penalty imposed by the A.D.M. is concerned, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned stating that the A.D.M. has no power to impose the penalty while exercising the power under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamps Act as amended in State of U.P. Subject to the aforesaid observation, I do not find any illegality in the aforesaid orders so far as imposition of Stamp Duty is concerned. So far as penalty is concerned, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the A.D.M. who shall hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 05.04.2006 Jain