Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8.2.2000 passed by the respondent no.1, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Uttar Pradesh Allahabad.
Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that through a registered sale deed executed on 25.5.1993 he purchased 0.36 acre of land of Gata No.1183 situated in village Pakariya, Naugawan, District Pilibhit from one Sardar Preetam Singh. According to him this land is situated outside of the octroi area and was being used earlier for agricultural purposes by Sardar Preetam Singh and subsequently for the manufacturing of bricks and bhatta and the land was full of big ditches filled with rainy water and there was no approach road for the land, which was purchased by the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- according to the market rate as fixed by the Collector, Pilibhit and Stamp Duty paid by the petitioner was Rs.9425/- taking valuation of the land in question as Rs.65,000/-.
According to the petitioner, even as per the rate list maintained in the office of the Collector, Pilibhit for the period from 9.10.1992 to 30.11.1994, the rate of the land in dispute was fixed at Rs.1,40,000/-per acre and, therefore, according to the said prevailing rate valuation of the land came about Rs.60,000/- and the petitioner taking the valuation of the land as Rs.65,000/- as determined by the Collector, Pilibhit paid the stamp duty of Rs.9425/-.
The case of the petitioner further is that neighbouring plots no.1182 and 384, total area 0.81 acre was purchased by one Sanjeev Kumar from Sardar Preetam Singh for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- on 31.1.1995 when as per the rate list, the value of the land was Rs.1,55,000/- as determined by the Collector, Pilibhit and, therefore, since land of the petitioner was purchased on 25.5.1993, i.e two years prior to the sale of the adjacent plot no.1182 and 384, valuation of the land in question measuring 0.36 acre could not have been determined by the Additional Commissioner, Stamps (Finance and Revenue), Pilibhit at Rs.1,26,000/- and deficiency of stamp duty at Rs.92,945/- .
The case of the petitioner is that sale deed in question dated 25.5.1993 was sent for verification for stamp duty under Section 47-1-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Sub Registrar, Pilibhit and the Inspector General Registration, Shahjahanpur on 31.10.1995 issued an inspection letter to the Tehsildar, Pilibhit to inspect the land and submit his report. The Naib-Tehsildar Pilibhit submitted his report to the Commissioner, Shahjahanpur Camp at Pilibhit on 26.6.1996 in case no.776 of 1994-95, State of U.P. vs. Deepak Agrawal. According to the petitioner, the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Pilibhit in his report dated 26.6.1996 has clearly determined the value of the land at Rs.63,000/- but treating it to be commercial land has doubled the value of the land and held it to be costing Rs.1,26,000/-.On the basis of the report of the Naib Tehsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp (Finance & Revenue) has determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs.92,945/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, (Finance & Revenue) dated 3.12.1996 the petitioner preferred Stamp Revision in which respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 8.2.2000 has determined the deficiency of stamp duty as Rs.92,945 treating the land to be residential.
I have heard Sri Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3.
From a perusal of the impugned order what emerges is that there has been no determination by either of the authorities regarding the nature and usage of the land as on the date of sale deed i.e. on 25.5.1993 nor there appears to be any determination of the value of the land as on the date of sale deed which was executed on 25.5.1993. Inspection report was conducted some time in 1996 undisputedly and the inspection report was submitted on 26.6.1996 i.e. three years after the date of the sale deed. The respondent no.1 has proceeded to treat the land as residential only on the ground that it is situated next to the Bareilly road and that the village where the disputed land is situated is developed.
From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the same is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and based upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 26.6.1996 and there is no consideration by the respondent no.1 as to what was the nature of the land on the date when the sale deed was executed and whether on that date the land in question was agricultural or residential or commercial. The inspection report itself was conducted three years after execution of the sale deed and the same, therefore, could not have been the foundation for determination of the stamp duty and thereby computing deficiency of stamp duty.
In the case reported in 2004 (5) AWC 3952, Rakesh Chandra Mittal and others Versus State of U.P. and another, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"10. There is no finding returned by the respondent No. 1 that the oil extracting plant was in existence on the land at the time of execution of the sale deed. The finding of the existence of the oil extracting plant is based on inspection by the Tehsildar which was done after more than three and half years of the execution of the sale deed. Even the petitioner stated in his objection that he has installed the machine after about three years of purchase of the land. It is well settled that the market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the date on which the document is on varying and changing. Any subsequent improvement or change in the nature or the user of the land, which may result into enhancement of the market value of the property is not to be taken into account and it is only the value of the property on the date of execution of the document that is to be considered for the purpose of determination of proper stamp duty payable on the instrument.
11. In the absence any evidence on record or any finding in the impugned order to the effect that the oil extracting machine was in existence on the land at the time of execution of the instrument, the respondent No. 1 was not justified in valuing that part of the land in applying commercial rates. The entire land has to be valued treating it to be an agricultural land.
12. In view of the above finding of the respondent No. 1 with regard to the market value of part of the property treating to be an agricultural land, it is clear that if the entire area is treated as agricultural land then the market value of the property has been correctly shown in the instrument and proper stamp duty has been paid thereof."
In the case reported in 2006(2) AWC 1492, Smt. Sushila Verma Versus State of U.P. and others this Court held as follows:
"4.......The value of the land is to be considered as on the date of the transaction and not on the presumption that it may, in future, be used for residential or any other purposes, and on such presumption, charge stamp duty after assessing the value of the land, as if it was for residential purpose. It has not been found by the authorities that the land in question, when purchase, was not agricultural land. In such a situation, the assessment of the price of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, treating it to be residential plot and charging the stamp duty on the basis of circle rate fixed by the Collector, Allahabad, is totally unreasonable and liable to be set aside.
5. Learned standing counsel has however stated that as per Article 23 of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the State of U.P., stamp duty is to be charged on either the sale price or the market value of the land, whichever is higher. The sale price of the land in question as declared by the petitioner is Rs.1,65,000/-, on which, stamp duty has already been paid. The market value of the land in question has not been considered by the authorities below, except for applying the principle of circle rate for residential plots, which is not tenable for reasons mentioned above, as the land,when purchased, was agricultural land. As such, the impugned orders dated 5.8.2002 and 9.9.2002 are liable to be set aside and are thus quashed."
In another case reported in 2007 (1) AWC 727, Nar Singh Das Agrawal Versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others, this Court has held that merely because the residential house is adjacent to road, will not lead to a presumption that it is a commercial accommodation. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"3. Along with report of Tehsildar map was also annexed showing that on three sides of the house in dispute there were residential houses. Merely because house was situated at Malgodown road, it could not be inferred that it was commercial. Houses also require roads. The mere fact that a house is adjacent to a road does not convert it into a commercial accommodation.
There is no finding that on the road in question, i.e., Malgodown road there were shops adjacent to the house in dispute."
In view of the above facts and law laid down by this Court the impugned order dated 8.2.2000 is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
The writ petition is allowed and order dated 8.2.2000 is quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Uttar Pradesh Allahabad to reconsider the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and the law laid down by this Court.
Order Date :- 17.7.2012 Asha