Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47150 of 2004 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar & Another Respondent :- Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Ram Gupta,Smt. Abha Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Shree Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the orders dated 31.12.2003 and 7.10.2004 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899').
Briefly stated the case of the petitioners as stated in the writ petition is that they purchased the house property in question through sale deed dated 02.7.2003 for a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- but paid stamp duty on the market value of the property at Rs. 5,26,000/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings under the Act, 1899 were initiated against the petitioners. The total area of the house sale property is stated to be 63.15 sq. mt. out of which 52.87 sq. mt. was valued at residential rates and 10.28 sq. mt. area of the front covered by a tin shed was valued at commercial rates. The Collector, Stamp by his order dated 31.12.2003 has determined the market value of the property at Rs. 14,88,642/- and has determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 95,500/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 29,100/-, total Rs. 1,25,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Stamp dated 31.12.2003, the petitioner preferred a stamp appeal which has also been dismissed by the order dated 7.10.2004.
In the stamp proceedings, the petitioner submitted his objections stating clearly that part of the property was valued at residential rates and part of the property was valued at commercial rates total for a sum of Rs. 5,26,000/- even though the property had been purchased for Rs. 4,80,000/-. It was also stated that there was no commercial activity going on in the property in dispute neither any spot inspection was conducted nor were the petitioners informed of any such spot inspection nor their signatures had been taken on the spot inspection report.
The Collector, Stamp has noted the stand taken by the petitioners in their objections but has not dealt with them. First, with regard to spot inspection, all that has been stated by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp/Collector, Stamp is that the District Magistrate, Banda had conducted the spot inspection. When was the spot inspection conducted, on what date, at what time and in whose presence, nothing has been mentioned and it is the report based on this spot inspection which has been made the foundation of the order of the Collector dated 31.12.2003.
Secondly, the Collector has also not indicated as to how he has arrived at the figure of Rs. 14,88,642/- as the market value of the property. No rates have been mentioned on the basis of which this conclusion has been made. The Commissioner also in his impugned order has not dealt with these facts at all and he has also not recorded any finding as to how the figure of Rs. 14,88,642/- was arrived at and what were the rates applied for determining the market value of the property. He has also not recorded any finding as to whether notice of spot inspection was given to the petitioner or not.
This court in the case of Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1087 has clearly held that spot inspection must be conducted after proceedings have been initiated and that any spot inspection conducted prior is only valid for the purposes of initiating the proceedings but it cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the property or the stamp duty payable thereon. Paragraph 25 of the judgement reads as under:-
"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty."
In the present case, there is no mention as to whether any spot inspection was conducted after the proceedings had been initiated or that it was conducted in the presence of the petitioners. It has also not been stated as to how the market value of the property has been determined at Rs. 14,88,642/- and what rates have been applied.
For reasons aforesaid and in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of Ram Khelawan (supra), the impugned orders dated 31.12.2003 and 7.10.2004 are wholly illegal and arbitrary and are accordingly, quashed.
The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has further stated that the house property in dispute now does not exist as such as it has been demolished in July, 2008 under a road widening program of the State Highway.
In this view of the matter, it would be futile to remit the matter to the Collector, Stamp to conduct a fresh spot inspection and determine the status of the house property.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Any amount which may have been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty shall be refunded to him along with interest by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Kirti