JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner purchased a house which is constructed on 200 sq. yard of land through sale deed dated 20.8.1993. At the relevant time under the Stamp Rules circle rate for residential properties of the area where house in dispute is situate (i.e. Station Bajariya, Mal Godown Road) was Rs. 55/- per sq. feet. Stamp duty at the said rate was paid by the petitioner. After two weeks of its registration the sale deed was impounded as Sub-Registrar reported that by reading the description of the property and the area where it is situate mentioned in the Sale deed it is possible that the property in question may be treated to be commercial. The reference was made by Sub Registrar on 4.9.1993. At the relevant time circle rate for commercial properties in the area in question was Rs. 150/- per sq. feet. A report was called for from the Tehsildar who reported that proper stamp duty had been paid. However, A.D.M.(Stamp), Etawah through order dated 30.3.1994 passed in case No. 4,65 of 1993-94 - State v. Nar Singh Das Agarwal under Section 47/33 Stamp Act held that property could have commercial value. Report of Tehsildar was contemptuously brushed aside and report of Sub-registrar-was accepted. Stamp deficiency of about Rs. 25,000/- was determined and penalty of Rs. 7,000/- was also imposed. Against the said order Stamp Revision No. 33 of 1994-95 was filed which was partly allowed on 18.4.1995 by C.C.R.A./Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The C.C.R.A. set aside the penalty and reduced the market value from Rs. 150/- per sq.feet to Rs. 140/- per sq feet. This resulted in reduction of deficiency of stamp duty by about Rs. 3,000/-. This writ petition is directed against the said orders. The property is situate on Malgodown road Mohalla Bajariya Station. If circle rate for residential as well as commercial purposes are shown for any particular area then commercial rate may be applied only if building is being used for commercial purposes or has got immediate commercial potential. The C.C.R.A. held that in future land in dispute might have commercial potential. Firstly, future is in the womb of uncertainty. Secondly, future potential is not relevant for determining market value. Valuation of immovable property is rising rapidly. In several areas it doubles in about three years. However, on the basis of this acceleration no purchaser can be asked to pay stamp duty on double or four times of the market value on the ground that after three or six years the value would be double or four times of the value at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed.
2. Alongwith 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 situate at Maalgodam 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. maalgodam road there were shops adjacent to the house in dispute.
3. There is one more aspect of the matter-which requires consideration. If from the perusal of the sale deed itself it was clear that property was commercial however, stamp duty had been paid on residential basis then Sub-registrar should not have registered the deed. Sub-registrar himself merely on the basis of the deed recommended for initiation of proceedings for determination and realization of deficiency in stamp duty. In such situation action should have been taken against the Sub-registrar by the District Magistrate for illegally registering the sale deed at the first instance. However, as the matter is quite old I do not consider it appropriate for issuing direction for taking action against the Sub-registrar concerned. However, in future District Magistrates/Collectors must be particular in this regard. If a Sub-registrar merely on the basis of recital in the sale deed which has already been registered gives a report that proper stamp duty has not been paid then immediately action must be taken against the Sub-registrar as to why at the initial stage he registered the sale deed and why he did not insist on payment of proper stamp duty before registering the sale deed. Such type of action by Sub-Registrar only shows that at the initial stage Sub-registrar registered the sale deed for some extraneous consideration.
4. Learned standing counsel is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for communication to all the Collectors.
5. I find that the impugned orders are utterly erroneous in law. They are based on conjectures and surmises and vital evidence i.e. report of Tehsildar, has wrongly been ignored.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 30.3.1994 and 18.4.1995 are set aside.
7. Let a copy of this order be given free of cost to Sri S.P. Misra the learned standing counsel by 17.10.2006 for sending it to the Secretary and Collector concerned. The copies of this order may also be sent directly to all the Collectors by learned standing counsel, if possible. The Collectors shall in turn circulate the copies to all Sub-Registrars.