Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J.) The present writ petitions being civil misc. writ petition nos. 49085 of 2002 and 51036 of 2002 have been filed against notices dated 12.09.2002, purporting to be under Section 47-A/33 and 40(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, issued by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Agra (in short "the Additional Collector"). Since the questions involved in these writ petitions are common, therefore they are being heard and disposed of together.
2. One of the significant question arising in these petitions is ? "whether the sale deed whereupon the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner on even more than the values as was fixed by the Collector of the District in furtherance of Rule 4(1) of the UP Stamp (Valuation of Properties) Rules, 1997 (framed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in U.P.) (here-in-after referred to as "the Valuation Rules") could be examined by the Collector for alleged deficiency of the stamp duty, though no tangible or relevant evidence of the higher market value was possessed by the Collector for formation of a reasonable belief of understatement?"
3. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are:-
Writ Petition No. 49085 of 2002
4. The petitioner purchased a bhumidhari agricultural land, bearing part of Khasra no. 530 at village Patholi, Tehsil & District Agra admeasuring 3.3788 Hectares for a total consideration of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- from its recorded bhumidhars vide sale deed dated 17.06.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The sale deed was presented for its registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar, Agra who, on being satisfied about the sufficiency of the stamp duty as per the Collector's rate-list then in force, registered the same. It may be noted that the rate per hectare as mentioned in the said sale deed worked out to be around Rs. 34 lacs per hectare which was about three times of the rate of Rs. 12 lacs per hectare, which was fixed by the Collector, Agra by his rate-list dated 01.04.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. The sale deed after registration was given back to the petitioner by the Sub-Registrar. It may be also mentioned that in the said sale deed, the factum of cultivation upon the land was specifically mentioned and the Khatoni for the Fasli year 1406 to 1411 alongwith Khasra extract of 1406, 1408 & 1409 Faslis were filed as part of the said sale deed to establish about cultivation upon the demised land. The copies of said Khatonis and Khasras have also been brought on record of this writ petition (Annexure No. 3 to 6 to the writ petition).
5. Subsequent thereto, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration / Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Agra Division, Agra (in short, "the DIG") allegedly made a spot inspection of the demised land on 30.07.2002 (Annexure-7 to writ petition), mentioning therein that the land in question was in the North of 100 ft. wide link road; residential activities were in the neighbourhood; on enquiries its value has been stated to be Rs. 10-15 lacs per bigha; the land in question was abutting road and it was further mentioned that on the basis of Rs. 15 lacs per bigha, stamp duty of Rs. 10,49,300/- was paid less. The report was forwarded to the Additional Collector (F & R), Agra on 13.8.2002 who directed a case to be registered on 11.09.2002. Strangely, the Additional Collector (F&R), Agra (in short, "the Additional Collector") also made another inspection himself on 28.08.2002 who mentioned in his memo (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) that on enquiries from the persons present at the time of the site inspection, it came to be known that the aforesaid land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per sq. mtr. and, accordingly, he proposed for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act. These reports were ex parte and did not mention about the details of any sale instance. The name of the persons from whom such enquiries were allegedly made also did not find mention in the reports. No statement of the persons enquired was either recorded or made part of the reports. On this report, the DIG passed an order for registration of a stamp case.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid reports dated 30.07.2002 of the DIG and dt. 28.08.2002 of Additional Collector, two stamp cases being 507 and 629 of 2002 were registered and two notices (Annexure-9 & 10 to the writ petition) in respect of the same land and covered the same sale deed (Annexure-1) were issued on 12.09.2002 by the Additional Collector. While one of the notices proposed deficiency of Rs. 10,49,300/-, the another proposed the deficiency of Rs. 39,18,200/-.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid two notices both dated 12.09.2002. Alongwith the writ petition, several documents being the sale instances and khasra extracts of the comparable lands were also brought on record (Annexure-10 to 14 to the writ petition).
Writ No. 51036 of 2002
8. The petitioner also purchased another bhumidhari agricultural land, bearing Khasra no. 521 situated in the same village i.e. Patholi, Tehsil & District Agra admeasuring 1.0395 Hectares for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lacs vide sale deed dated 03.07.2002 (Annexure-1). This sale deed was also presented for its registration and the concerned Sub-Registrar, on being satisfied about sufficiency of stamp duty, registered the same. The rate per hectare, as per the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, worked out to be more than Rs. 19 lacs per hectare as against the rate fixed by the Collector of Rs. 12 lacs per hectare. In this sale deed also, the factum of cultivation upon the land was specifically mentioned and the Khatoni for the Fasli year 1406 to 1411 alongwith Khasra extract of 1407 & 1409 Faslis were filed as part of the said sale deed to establish the factum of cultivation. The copies of said Khatonis and Khasras have also been filed alongwith the writ petition (Annexure No. 3 to 5 to this writ petition).
9. Subsequently, the Additional Collector allegedly made an inspection on 28.08.2002 and a copy of the inspection memo is on record (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). In this inspection memo, it was mentioned that the petitioner had purchased the land for residential purpose. It was also mentioned that it was situated in a developing area and on enquiries from the persons present at the time of the site inspection, it came to be known that the aforesaid land was sold at the rate of Rs. 900/- per sq. mtr. and accordingly, he proposed for initiation of the proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act. This inspection was also ex parte and did not mention the details of any sale instance of any comparable land. The name of the persons from whom enquiries were allegedly made also did not find mention in the report. No statement of the persons enquired was either recorded or made part of the report. On this report, the DIG passed an order for registration of a stamp case, which vide order dated 11.09.2002 of the Additional Collector was registered as stamp case being 621 of 2002 and a notice dated 12.09.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) was issued by the Additional Collector.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition also for quashing of the aforesaid notice dated 12.09.2002. Alongwith the writ petition, several documents of sale instances and khasra extracts of comparable lands have also been brought on record (Annexure-13 to 17 to the writ petition).
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The point requiring consideration for the purposes of decision of these writ petitions, are:
i.Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie to challenge a notice purporting to be u/s 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and what would be the scope to examine the legality of such notice?
ii.Whether the Additional Collector could have assumed jurisdiction to issue notices demanding more stamp duty on the instruments of sale even though the petitioner had paid stamp duty on values more than the values fixed by the Collector of the District in furtherance of the Valuation Rules?
iii.Whether in the present cases, this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and quash the notices?
13. It would be first appropriate to glance over Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Its sub-section (1) shows that if the stamp duty on a sale deed has been paid in accordance with the rates fixed by the Collector, it would be obligatory for the Sub-Registrar to register it. After it is registered, the power to examine the instrument for the purposes of sufficiency of the stamp duty and the correctness of the market value shown therein is very limited as is clear from a perusal of its sub-section (3). The power under sub-section (3) is a restricted and fettered one hinging upon the fulfillment of the pre-requisite, namely, "reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument." In a case, where this sine quo non requirement of the "reason to believe" is not existing, it would be a case of an issue of a notice without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the sufficiency of reasons for formation of a reasonable belief are not to be scanned in the writ jurisdiction but the relevancy as well as the existence or otherwise of the objective material essential for its formation can very well be examined.
14. The issue of maintainability of a writ petition where "reason to believe" does not exist, has been dealt with and explained in a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on several occasions. It has been in the context of Section 147 of the Income-tax, 1961 also, where this controversy of the existence or otherwise of the "reason to believe" often arose. The provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are in fact in pari materia to Sectiion 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act and, therefore, the case law evolved in context with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act also stands attracted and applicable to ascertain the true connotation and import of the term the "reason to believe", as employed in sub-section (3) of Setion 47-A of the Stamp Act.
15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Foramer v. CIT & ors. (2001) 247 ITR 436CIT v. Foramer, (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC). held that if a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was without jurisdiction, the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy and writ petition is maintainable. This decision was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in In the case of Indra Prastha Chemicals (P) Ltd. & ors. v. CIT & anr., (2004) 271 ITR 113, a Division Bench of this Court again held that "this Court under Article 226 is entitled to go into the relevancy of the reasons as also to scrutinize as to whether there was reasonable belief or not. Thus, the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable." More recently, in the case of Dass Friends Builders (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2006) 280 ITR 77, a Division Bench of this Court, while quashing the show cause notice, held that " the question whether the AO had reasons to believe is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as held in Daulatram Rawatmal v. ITO (1960) 38 ITR 301 (Cal); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO (1968) 69 ITR 461 (All); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); C.M. Rajgharia v. ITO (1975) 98 ITR 486 (Pat) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO (1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC)." While explaining the scope of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against a show cause notice, the Division Bench of this Court in Dass Friends Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) observed in paragraph no. 14 as under:
"If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the AO could not have reason to believe. In such a case, the notice issued by him would be liable to be struck down as invalid as held in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd., v. ITO (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 112 : (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC)"
16. This Court, while specifically dealing with Section 47-A of the Stamp Act in the case of Vijay Kumar & anr. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & ors., 2008 (5) ALJ 261, also succinctly held that "The sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Act is that the Collector has reason to believe that the stamp duty has not been properly set forth in the instrument as per market value of the property. Once the instrument is registered and the stamp duty as prescribed by the Collector has been paid, the burden to prove that the market value is more than the minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the rules, is upon the Collector. The report of the Sub-Registrar or Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden Reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. the Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Bulandshahar & anr., 1986 ALJ 49." Similar view was also taken in Duncuns Industries Ltd. v. State of UP, 1998 (89) RD 284.
17. In view of the above settled legal scenario, it cannot be gainsaid that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lies to challenge a jurisdictional notice issued by the stamp authorities under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act, if the same has been issued without the fulfillment of the pre-requisite, namely, the existence "reason to believe" that the market value of the demised property has not been truly set forth in the instrument in question. Such "reason to believe" should not be an eyewash but must be based on tangible, relevant and legally admissible evidence. It should be a belief of an honest and reasonable person who is properly instructed on facts and law. There must also be an intelligible nexus between the 'reason' and the 'belief'. Such belief should not be a substitute for roving enquiries because the term the "reason to believe" is much stronger, designedly employed by the legislature in place of the "reason to suspect". Even in a case where there are reasons to doubt or suspect about the truthfulness of the market value depicted in the instrument of sale, the proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A cannot be initiated by the stamp authorities as the "doubts" or "suspicions" can never be a substitute of a "reasonable belief" as contemplated by the law-makers.
18. In the above legal backdrop, the significant question now arises for consideration is ? whether while issuing the impugned three notices dated 12.09.2002 in both of the writ petitions, the Additional Collector had the "reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth" in the instruments of sale. Indisputably, the only material before the Additional Collector before issuing the impugned notices was the inspection reports with unsubstantiated averments and no other material whatsoever was before him.
19. It the above context, it may also be noted that the Collector, Agra himself issued the rate-list of the various localities, which was brought into force w.e.f. 01.04.2002. Such rate-list was prepared and put into force in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Collector under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act read with the Valuation Rules which came into force on 08.07.1997. The provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Valuation Rules enjoined the Collector to fix the minimum values after definitely taking into account the various factors as enumerated therein, which read as under:
"4. Fixation of minimum rate for valuation of land, construction value of non-commercial building and minimum rate of rent of commercial building.?(1) The Collector of the district shall biennially, as far as possible in the month of August, fix the minimum value per acre /per square metre of land, the minimum value per square metre of construction of non-commercial building and the minimum monthly rent per square meter of commercial building situated in different parts of the district taking into consideration the following facts:
1.in case of land?
i.classification of soil.
ii.Availability of irrigation facility, iii.Proximity to road, market, bus station, railway station factories, hospitals and government offices, and iv.Location with reference to its situation in urban area, semi-urban area or country side."
20. The Collector, Agra, in exercise of his powers under Rule 4(1) of the Valuation Rules, quoted above, fixed the minimum market value for village Patholi @ Rs. 12 lacs per hectare and such fixation by the Collector shall be the prima facie market value of the land of the said village and it would be a reasonable presumption that the Collector, Agra took into consideration all relevant factors which were deemed necessary for the fixation of the market value of village Patholi land. In the present case, the sale deeds in question were executed on 17.06.2002 and 03.07.2007 i.e. only after the expiry of three months from the date of the said rate-list coming into force. It was ex facie unjustifiable exercise of the powers to initiate the proceedings for alleged deficiency of the stamp duty, when the stamp duty already stood paid by the petitioner on a value even more than as was fixed by the said rate-list dated 01.04.2002. Such proceedings, so initiated, were without jurisdiction, as the Stamp Authorities were not possessed of any tangible evidence vis-à-vis the aforesaid rate-list. It would, therefore, be also just and proper to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in this compelling fact-situation. In this connection, the decision of the High Court of Uttaranchal in Bhopendra Singh & ors. v. Avas Vikas Parishad & ors., 2005 (2) UD 295, is also relevant wherein in the context of the Land Acquisition Act, it was observed:
"Once an action contemplated statutorily under an Act of an authority is regulated by a set of Rules framed under the Act read with Entry 44 List 3 of Schedule 7 it has got a statutory effect, otherwise the same would render the provisions of Section 47-A which is a procedural legislation as to be redundant. When on presentation, the Registering Officer has to assess the face value of the document on the basis of the market value fixed by the Collector, which infers that the basis of exercising of powers under Section 47-A (1) are the Rules framed under Chapter 15 of the Rules. In the absence of which no action could be proceeded with under Section 47-A (1) & (2), thus the Rules framed under Rule 340, 340-A & 341 guides the activity of an authority to meet the purpose contemplated under the Act, hence the same would be mandatory as it regulates the purpose of the Act. When sub-section 2 of Section 47-A on a reference made by the Collector under Section 47-A provides that prior to computation of the minimum value, the Collector has to provide an opportunity within the ambit of Rules framed under the Act, the same makes it mandatory so that the action of the State of fixing the liability of stamp duty prior to assessing the minimum value may not be arbitrary, thus also it renders the Rules to be statutory failing which the spirit and the purpose of Section 47-A is defeated, because a reference under Section 47-A to assess the minimum value of the property prior to its registration is regulated by Rules contained in Chapter 15 of the Rules."
21. In writ petition no. 49085 of 2002, the spot inspection was allegedly made by the DIG on 30.07.2002 while the spot inspection by the Additional Collector was made on 28.08.2002. Their spot inspection reports are on record (Annexure-7 & 8). The inspections were made ex parte in the absence of the petitioner, its vendors and their representatives. The DIG, in his Inspection Report dated 30.07.2002 has stated the value of the land to be Rs. 15 lacs per bigha. The basis for his opinion was only enquiries made there but from whom such enquiries were made and the names and addresses of the persons enquired have not been disclosed. What was the basis of such revelation of the rate by the enquired persons has not been also elaborated. Similarly, the Inspection Report dated 28.08.2002 (Annexure-8) of the Additional Collector is said to be based on the enquiries about the rates at which lands were sold there. According to him, the prevalent rate was Rs. 1500/- sq. mtr.
22. Curiously enough, both of the aforesaid reports dated 30.07.2002 and 28.08.2002 were inconsistent about the value of the demised land. In one report, the value was alleged to be Rs. 15 lacs per bigha while in the another report of the Additional Collector, it was stated to be Rs. 1500/- per sq. mtr. In none of these inspection reports, there is any reference of the sale instances of comparable lands of the same or adjoining villages. It is needless to note that the DIG and the Additional Collector are the important statutory functionaries under the Stamp Act and the entire information and data base relating to the sale instances was at their disposal and easily accessible to them. Both the DIG and Additional Collector did not make any effort whatsoever to find out the sale instances of the lands situated in the surroundings. The inspection report based on hearsay evidence (enquiries from the unknown persons) instead of being on any tangible evidence were of no moment. The said inspection reports did not also point out any misstatement on the part of the petitioners. The market value cannot in any proceedings, be it the under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Wealth-tax Act or the Stamp Act, be fixed on hearsay, oral or unsubstantiated evidence. The 'market value' has to be necessarily justified by some objective, tangible and reliable material which, in most of the cases, should be in the form of the comparable sale instances, awards of the Collector or the Court, auction sale, final decisions in the stamp references etc. Further, the mere fact that some development took place around the land sold did not per se mean and imply that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed was not truly set forth. It cannot be disputed that for entertaining a 'reasonable belief' of untruthfulness of the sale consideration, the authorities initiating the proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act should possess relevant material and if they lack such material, as they were clearly lacking in the present case, the initiation of proceedings under sub-section (3) would be de hors the statutory provision and would mean only the roving enquiries, which were impermissible. This Court deprecates such unwarranted tendency of the Stamp Authorities to initiate proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act.
23. It also needs to be noticed that while the rate fixed under the rate-list dated 01.04.2002 by the Collector, Agra was only Rs. 12 lacs per hectare (Annexure-1), the petitioner himself purchased the property at the rate of around Rs. 34 lacs per hectare and paid stamp duty accordingly. The land in question was situated in "semi-urban area", as defined in Rule 2(h) of the Rules. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has brought on record 11 sale instances (Annexure-15 & 16A to 16K) of the same village, Patholi, which were also of the relevant period. The rates per hectare as reflected in these sale instances reflected the market value of Rs. 10 to 14 lacs per hectare which show that in the present matter, the stamp authorities initiated the proceedings under sub-section (3) without any application of their mind and without considering the sale instances. The revenue records in the form of the relevant khatauni and khasras also established that the demised land was under cultivation on the date of execution of the sale deed and was governed by the provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Any reference of the developments in the surroundings of the demised land or the potentiality of the demised land in the Inspection Report was of no consequence as it needs to be mentioned that the sale consideration, as was agreed between the petitioner and its vendor, would have also taken into account the potential possessed by the demised land. The petitioner purchased the land at the rate of Rs. 34 lacs per hectare in the year 2002 and would have considered all its features including its potentiality and would not have treated it to be an ordinarily agricultural land. Moreover, the market value which was reflected by the sale instances of the comparable lands also comprised therein the value for the inbuilt element of the potentiality possessed by the lands of these instances. In fact, whenever the 'comparable sales method' is adopted to find out the price structure, building potentiality assumes no significance, as was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rao Narain Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. UOI, (1993) 3 SCC 60. Therefore, any reference in the Inspection Reports about the potentiality of the land was uncalled for, being extraneous consideration and it vitiated the belief of the stamp authorities. Importantly, when the sale instances of similar lands were of even much lesser rates, the belief entertained by the stamp authorities about the untruthfulness of the sale consideration was totally misconceived, unfounded and illegal. In view of this, the mere fact that the land though under cultivation was near to some developing area by itself did not establish that the sale consideration as shown in the sale deed in question (Annexure-1), was not truly set forth or was under stated. It is also worth mention that the 1997 Rules has divided the lands to be of three categories, namely, "countryside area" [vide Rule 2(c)], "semi-urban area" [vide Rule 2(h)] and "urban area" [vide Rule 2(k)]. The lands situated in the urban and semi-urban areas would have urban potential while the land in country side area may not have such potential. In Rule 5(a) of the Rules, the mention of "agricultural" and "non-agricultural" lands would simply mean a land under cultivation or otherwise, and it does not classify land on the basis of potentiality or otherwise of a land. The Collector is, accordingly, required to fix the values of the lands in urban or semi-urban areas on the basis whether they are agricultural or non-agricultural regardless of its potentiality. The petitioner has rightly paid a stamp duty while purchasing the land. Further, the name and status of the petitioner and its intention for the purchase of the property had no nexus with the then prevalent market value. The charge of stamp duty under the Act is on the "market value" of a property as prevailing on the date of the execution of an instrument in view of Section 3 read with Article 23 of the Schedule 1(B) of the Act. The Act nowhere enjoins fixation of the market value with reference to the name or status of a person. It would clearly imply that if a housing cooperative society or a house construction company purchases a land, the market value would not be higher as the market value would be determined only having regard to the various factors relevant for fixation of market value and not with reference to the person or his intention/purpose of purchase. To attach relevance to the name, intention or status or purpose of purchase by a purchaser would be, per se extraneous considerations which would vitiate the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act. Recently, the Supreme Court, while dealing with determination of market value in Subh Ram & ors. v. Haryana State & anr., 2009(7) Supreme 449, also took the view that the purpose of acquisition, can never be a factor to increase the market value of the acquired land." and it was observed that "if the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor in determining compensation, then it would lead to absurd and unjust situation, that the compensation payable for the same land will be different, depending upon the purpose of the acquisition; and that compensation will be less if the acquisition is for a sewage treatment plant, more if' the acquisition is for an industrial layout, much more if acquisition is for residential layout and highest if the acquisition is for commercial value. The purpose of acquisition cannot therefore be a factor to increase the compensation." As such, the mention in the Inspection Report of the stamp authorities about the alleged intentions of the petitioner vitiated their entire approach, rendering it arbitrary and illegal.
24. The curious part worth noticing is that in respect of the sale deed dated 17.06.2002, two impugned show cause notices both showing the different market values were issued on one and the same date i.e. 12.09.2002 and that too by the Additional Collector himself under his own signatures. It was not expected of the stamp authorities to act in such callous manner. Moreover, a notice under Section 47-A(3) was a jurisdictional notice, whereby the stamp authorities assumed jurisdiction to reopen the issue of the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid and such notice could not be issued in a routine or a casual or non-serious manner. Once the petitioner had purchased the land and paid stamp duty as per the rate-list in force, the exercise undertaken under sub-section (3) was a serious one which called for a much careful, cautious and judicious approach of the authorities to avoid the harassment. In any view of the matter, the initiation of the proceedings by the Additional Collector by way of the issue of the impugned notices in the present case were wholly unwarranted and without any objective satisfaction much needed for setting in motion the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act.
25. In writ petition no. 51036 of 2002, the site inspection was allegedly made by the Additional Collector on 28.08.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The site inspection memo is also similar to the memo dated 28.08.2002 referred to above. This memo refers to the enquiries made by the Additional Collector and does not refer to any sale instance or any other relevant evidence to show that the sale consideration stated in the sale deed dt. 03.07.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was under stated and there was any evasion of the stamp duty. The initiation of the proceedings on the basis of this inspection memo was again de hors sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act. The inspection memo does not indicate any objective basis for the satisfaction of the Additional Collector for forming the reasonable belief that the market value was not truly set forth in the instrument of sale. The usurpation of the authority by the issue of the impugned notice was wholly unwarranted and per se illegal. Since the sale deed dated 03.07.2002 also related to village Patholi and the sale instances brought on record clearly established that the comparable lands were sold at a much lesser rate than the land in the instant sale deed at the rate of more than Rs. 19 lacs per hectare. The petitioner, in this petition also, has made out a clear and convincing case for invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court and the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.
26. In the result, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. All the three notices dated 12.09.2002 issued by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Agra, challenged in writ petition nos. 49085 of 2002 and 51036 of 2002, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 9.9.2010 Rks.