Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2068 (ALL)

Mithlesh v. C. C. R. A. I. /Commissioner, Meerut

2015-07-23

BHARATI SAPRU

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru,J. Pleadings have been exchanged in this matter. 2. With the consent of parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in respect of sale deed dated 14.8.2007 by which the petitioner purchased land situated in Village Sultanpur Pargana, Tahsil and District Gautam Budh Nagar. The sale deed has been filed as Annexure SA-1 on record. 4. Although the sale deed itself reflects clearly that the land which was being sold was residential land, the petitioner paid stamp duty on the basis of agricultural land. 5. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a report made by Deputy Registrar III, NOIDA dated 23.8.2007, in pursuance of which, a notice was sent to the petitioner and the petitioner filed her objections. 6. The petitioner was heard and an order was passed by the Collector on 30.8.2008, which records clear findings that the petitioner land was residential in nature and they also relied on the exemplar earlier to the date of the sale deed. 7. The petitioner's objection, of course, was that the land was registered as agricultural land and therefore she was only required to pay agricultural rates. 8. The Collector opined otherwise and imposed deficiency of stamp duty at a sum of Rs.3,11,940/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at 1.5%. 9. The petitioner therefore filed stamp appeal, which too has been dismissed. 10. The Commissioner has also examined the matter at length and has relied on the fact that the sale deed has disclosed the nature of the property as residential and the exemplars relied on are of the approximate time and they show a certain market value. 11. The petitioner in her objection does not deny that the property is of a residential nature. She also does not deny the exemplars which have been placed on record, on which basis the assessment of deficiency has been made. 12. The plea of the petitioner is that because there was no declaration under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the stamp duty could only be assessed on that basis. The plea taken by the petitioner is not acceptable at all. 13. 12. The plea of the petitioner is that because there was no declaration under section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the stamp duty could only be assessed on that basis. The plea taken by the petitioner is not acceptable at all. 13. Learned standing counsel has argued that while reading section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the provisions of section 142 and 144 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act may also be read and that itself disclose that the land of the petitioner may be used in any purpose. 14. He has also argued that in view of the fact that the purpose disclsoed in the sale deed records that the use was to be of residential nature, such a plea is not available to the petitioner at all. 15. He also submits that the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act for certain purpose and are in any way or manner not subordinate to the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 16. The purpose of the Stamp Act is to assess stamp duty on true and market value of property so that proper assessment order could be made of sale and other transactions under the said Act. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this court is of the view that the facts in this case are all clearly established and admitted and in fact are corroborated. The sale deed of the petitioner itself, which shows that the land was of residential nature and surrounded by residential activities and having market value of residential nature. 18. The plea as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the teeth of the established findings and cannot stand, therefore it fails. 19. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are confirmed, subject to the modification that the penalty being almost equal to the deficiency imposed on the petitioner may be reduced to half as no good reason has been given by the respondents. The rest of the order is confirmed as it is. 20. With the above modification, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.