Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 686 (ALL)

ANANT RAM GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-03-01

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners have purchased part of land of gata No. 614 vide instrument of sale No. 1203 of 2008 dated 16.4.2008. 2. Petitioners valued the aforesaid land as an agricultural land and paid stamp duty accordingly. The authorities by the impugned order dated 23.3.2012 and the appellate order thereto dated 21.1.2013 have held the aforesaid land to be of residential use and have thus applied the residential rate in determining its market value and the deficiency in stamp duty. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land is actually agricultural in nature and its market value is not liable to be determined by treating it to be residential land. 4. The record reveals part of the same gata was sold by its owner earlier describing the land to be residential in nature and stamp duty at that time was paid according to the rates applicable to the residential land. 5. The land has not been declared to be non agriculture under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A and LR Act but as there is no bar in law in using it for other purposes rather Section 142 of the Act permits use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes also in the absence of material evidence to show that the land was under actual cultivation, the finding with regard to nature of the land recorded by the authorities is difficult to be disturbed. 6. In Smt. Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujrat, AIR 1993 SC 2585 , it was observed that whether the land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact and this question has to be answered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and where a land has not been cultivated for a period of years coupled with its location it is difficult to recognize it as an agricultural land. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the authorities regarding nature of the land depending upon its location is not open for interference. 7. The minimum rates notified by the Collector for the different categories of land of the various localities are not shown to be on the higher side or excessive. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the authorities regarding nature of the land depending upon its location is not open for interference. 7. The minimum rates notified by the Collector for the different categories of land of the various localities are not shown to be on the higher side or excessive. Accordingly, there is no illegality in applying the minimum rates notified for determining the market value of the residential land in the area. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not require any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The authorities below have imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in view of the fact that the proper stamp duty was not paid by the petitioners. There is no finding that there was any intention on part of the petitioners to evade payment of proper stamp duty. The petitioners appear to have acted bonafidely in assessing the market value of the land as per its agricultural nature as there was no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty is not justified and the same is deleted. The writ petition is dismissed modifying the impugned order by deleting the penalty imposed. ——————