Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 582 (UTT)

Ravi Kant Garg v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-11-03

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 16th June, 2003, passed by the A.D.M. (F.&.R.), Dehradun and the order dated 30th April, 2008, passed by the learned Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, whereby, the revision of the petitioner preferred against an order passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has been rejected as a consequence thereto he had been fastened with the liability of the deficiency of stamp to the tune of Rs.72,800/-on a sale deed, in favour of the petitioner. On a purchase of the property, which the petitioner has purchased by him by virtue of the sale deed dated 26th July, 1999. 2. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that at the time when he purchased the property, the said property was not demarcated/or notified under the master plan as to be lying within the commercial zone, as such, the stamp duty which was to be calculated, was to be calculated on the market value prevailing and with regard to the status of the property at the time when the sale deed was being executed. To further elucidate the said stand that the property was not recorded in the commercial area and was being utilized by the petitioner for the domestic purpose, he has placed on record, the receipts pertaining to the sewage tax, electricity bills and water tax which all goes to show that the connection installed in the premises are domestic connection, apart from fact that the property was not notified as commercial property in the master plan on date of purchase. 3. He further submits that no commercial activity is being carried from the said premises, rather the petitioner was in an Advocate, he has opened up his chamber as would be apparent from his objection taken before the Court below which he substantiated by filing his registration certificate too, to show that he is professional. 4. In the present professional scenario, particularly, pertaining to the Advocates, the profession is not so lucrative to all the professionals who could have an accommodation which are lying in a commercial area and that is why the Advocates who are in this profession, which is not so lucrative, often operate their chamber from their residence. 4. In the present professional scenario, particularly, pertaining to the Advocates, the profession is not so lucrative to all the professionals who could have an accommodation which are lying in a commercial area and that is why the Advocates who are in this profession, which is not so lucrative, often operate their chamber from their residence. Hence, merely because of the fact that an Advocate chamber is being operated from a residential area, in itself will not make the property commercial and it cannot be treated as to be a commercial establishment. The said ratio has been laid down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Saliq Ram Agarwal Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others reported in 1995 HVB (3) 165. Para 4 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder :- “The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount is being recovered at the commercial rate whereas the office of the petitioner does not come within the purview of commercial establishment.” 5. Besides this, the Stamp Authorities when they are calculating the stamp on a document by issuing notices under Section 47-A, they will have to determine the status of the property as it existed on the date of the execution of the deed. 6. This Court, too, in a judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2006 (M/S), has held as under :- “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had purchased the property by virtue of deed of conveyancing executed on 26th April, 2005. Thereafter, even so much so, the nature of the land has also been altered by declaration made under Section 143 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act was made. Thus, by the declaration made under Section 143 of the Act, the land losses its character which was in existence on the time of execution of the sale deed. The stamp duty in relation to an immovable property is always determined on the basis of the status of the land as prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed. The same cannot be revised at a later stage, merely, because the Collector has revised the circle rates by virtue of subsequent Notification.” 7. The stamp duty in relation to an immovable property is always determined on the basis of the status of the land as prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed. The same cannot be revised at a later stage, merely, because the Collector has revised the circle rates by virtue of subsequent Notification.” 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds, the impugned orders dated 16.06.2003, passed by A.D.M. (F.&R.), Dehradun and revisional order dated 30.04.2008, passed by Commissioner, are quashed. The entire amount deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the interim order before this Court on 9th July, 2008, would be refunded back by the Registry to the petitioner. No order as to costs.