Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1521 (ALL)

Vidhya Devi v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-05-10

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2010
Pankaj Mithal, J.:- The dispute relates to the payment of stamp duty on sale deed no. 2101 of 2008 whereunder land of plots no. 133, 137 and 138 area 0.52685 hectare equivalent to 2568.5 sq. meters situate at Rustampur Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh has been purchased by the petitioner. The report of Sahayik Mahanibhandak stated that the aforesaid land has been transferred at the rate prescribed for agricultural land for a sale consideration 3.5 lacs per bigha whereas under the sale deed no. 2151/2 75 sq. meters of land of these very gatas was transferred at the residential rate and therefore there appears to be variation of market value leading to inappropriate payment of stamps duty. On basis of the above report proceedings under Section 33/47A of the Stamp Act were initiated against the petitioner which came to be registered as Stamp Case No.44 of 2009-10. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Aligarh vide impugned order dated 18.8.2009 solely on the ground that earlier land of the same gatas has been transferred on the basis of the residential rate, determined the market value of the land transferred under the sale deed in question calculating the deficiency in stamp duty to be Rs. 1,12,540/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- along with 1.5% interest per month on the deficiency. The petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.10.2009. 2. The above two orders dated 18.8.2009 and 31.10.2009 have been challenged in the instant writ petition. 3. Parties agree for disposal of the writ petition on merits at this stage itself. Accordingly, I have heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel finally on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute is purely agricultural in nature and there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and therefore the authorities below manifestly erred in law in applying the residential rate in determining the market value of the agricultural land. 5. The aforesaid argument has been resisted by the learned Standing counsel on the ground that nature of the land is immaterial for the purposes of determining the market value. It is now settled that the market value has to be determined by adopting the exemplar method. 5. The aforesaid argument has been resisted by the learned Standing counsel on the ground that nature of the land is immaterial for the purposes of determining the market value. It is now settled that the market value has to be determined by adopting the exemplar method. In support he has placed reliance upon two authorities 2000 (3) AWC 2587 Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwani Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P., Allahabad and another and 2005 (2) AWC 1087 Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and others. 6. In Aniruddha Kumar (Supra) his Lordship has clearly laid down that an agricultural land can not be treated to be a residential land until there is declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act, meaning thereby that the character/nature of agricultural land can not change unless there is a declaration as aforesaid. 7. In Ram Khelawan (Supra) the view expressed above has been accepted but it has been laid down that the rates notified under the Stamp Act by the Collector for various classes or nature of land are merely guidelines and can not be applied once the sale deed/document has been registered whereupon market value of the property/land has to be determined in accordance with general principles as applicable in determining compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act ie. by following one of the methods provided viz. the exemplar sale method. 8. In view of the above legal position, as there is nothing on record to the effect that any declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and LR Act has been issued in respect to the land in question, the same can not be treated as non agricultural land in nature. However, the nature of the land makes no difference as the sale deed has been registered and the matter has come up for determination of the market value thereafter which has to be determined by following the exemplar method irrespective of the nature of the land. 9. Learned Standing counsel has submitted the best exemplar is the sale deed no. 2151/2 whereby part of the land of the same gata was transferred. Therefore, the authorities have committed no error in determining the market value according to the said exemplar sale deed so as to calculate the deficiency in stamp duty. 9. Learned Standing counsel has submitted the best exemplar is the sale deed no. 2151/2 whereby part of the land of the same gata was transferred. Therefore, the authorities have committed no error in determining the market value according to the said exemplar sale deed so as to calculate the deficiency in stamp duty. The submission though appears to be of substance but on closure scrutiny I find no force in the same. 10. No doubt, the market value has to be determined on the basis of the exemplar but in the present case only one exemplar sale deed no. 2151/2 which relates to part of the land of the same very gata has been relied upon. A close look at the exemplar would reveal that by the sale deed only 75 sq. yard land was transferred whereas the area of land covered by the sale deed in question is very large ie. to the extent of 2568.5 sq.meters. In view of the vast difference in areas of the two sale deeds the said sale exemplar can not be said to be of a comparable land and can not be straight away applied for determining the market value of the land in dispute. It is well recognized principle of law that where large area of land is transferred its value is likely to be less in comparison to the market value of a small piece of land. The authorities have not applied any deduction on account of largeness in area. Accordingly, in my opinion the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) as well as Assistant Commissioner of Stamps though justified in ignoring the nature of the land and in determining the market value of the land on basis of exemplar, committed manifest error of law in determining the market value on the basis of exemplar sale deed no. 2151/2 which pertains to a very small piece of land in comparison to a land which has been transferred by the document in question. 11. Apart from the above, exemplar there is no evidence on record to establish the market value of the land in dispute. 12. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 18.82009 and 31.10.2009 can not be sustained. 13. 11. Apart from the above, exemplar there is no evidence on record to establish the market value of the land in dispute. 12. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 18.82009 and 31.10.2009 can not be sustained. 13. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing both the aforesaid orders dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Aligarh and dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamps) Aligarh Mandal Aligarh. The writ petition, as such succeeds and is allowed. 14. Any stamp duty paid in pursuance to the impugned orders by the petitioner be refunded forthwith.