Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1983 (ALL)

S. K. Agencies v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-08-25

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Collector, Bareilly as well as the order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in proceedings under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899). 4. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition is that it purchased plot no. 523 area 2-8-10 (6145 sq. mtr.) situated in Village Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly, through a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2004. The contention is that on the date of purchase, it was agricultural land and agricultural activity was also going on the same. 5. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioner. The report of the Tehsildar dated 8.2.2007 is that a part of the land was covered with foundation and in one-fourth part there was cultivation of wheat and one-fourth part was lying absolutely barren (banjar). On these findings, the Collector by his order dated 30.5.2007 has held that the land was purchased merely for residential purposes and therefore, has determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 3,07,000/- on which a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed, total Rs. 3,08,000/- plus interest @ 1.5 % per mensem. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a stamp appeal under Section 56(1)(A) of the Act, 1899 which has also been rejected by the Commissioner, Bareilly by the other impugned order dated 12.03.2008. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the spot inspection report shows that wheat crop was grown on the land in question and that it was essentially an agricultural land. However, what is noticed is that in the inspection report it has been mentioned that the finding that on a part of the land there was foundation constructed and on one-fourth part there was wheat crop growing and the remaining one fourth of the land was barren land. The Stamp Collector has further held that from this plot no. 523 earlier other plots were purchased through sale deeds no. The Stamp Collector has further held that from this plot no. 523 earlier other plots were purchased through sale deeds no. 1619, 1618, 1798, 1863 of 2004 on which stamp duty was computed at the rates applicable to residential land which is Rs. 1,000/- per sq. mtr. and therefore, on the basis of these four exemplars he has computed the deficiency of stamp duty in respect of the plot in dispute applying the rates applicable to a residential land. The same finding has also been recorded by the Commissioner in the stamp appeal. The land in dispute comprises an area of 2-8-10 of plot no. 523 whereas of this plot no. 523 itself earlier there were other sale deeds being sale deeds no. 1619, 1618, 1798, 1863 of 2004 for which the rates applied were the rates as prevalent for residential land for the purposes of computing stamp duty. There were four exemplars already available and the same have been applied in the present case. 7. The Full Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 136 (Smt. Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P.) has held that the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purposes of computing the stamp duty. Where however the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of execution of the instrument itself by referring to exemplar or comparable sale instances that is clearly a circumstances which is relevant and germane to determine the true market value. Paragraph 28 of the said judgement reads as under: "28. The fact that the land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of stamp duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. 23 Ambrish Tandon and another, 2012 (5) SCC 566 . This is because the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the stamp duty. Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value. Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value. At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise. The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous sale deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration. The Collector, therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser." 8. Considering the facts of the case and the law laid down in the case of Pushpa Sareen (supra), I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 9. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.