Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43951 of 2004 Petitioner :- Salig Ram Gupta Respondent :- Commissioner & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kuamr Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.B.Yadav
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The petitioner bought the property in question on 13.3.2003 and got it registered on the same date. The total area of the plot in question was 64.27 sq.m. Out of the total area petitioner paid stamp on 8.83 sq.m. at the rate which was applicable to commercial areas. On the remaining area stamp duty was paid at residential rate. After the sale deed was registered an inspection was done under Rule-7 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 and a report was submitted on 14.5.2003 which stated that the plot was a commercial plot and, thereafter, it was stated that stamp duty ought to have been paid at commercial rates. Consequently a notice was issued to which the petitioner replied on 7.8.2003. He also submitted a supplementary reply on 19.11.2003, wherein the petitioner stated that even though, the plot was situate in a residential area and stamp duty had to be paid on the basis of the rates applicable to a residential area, he was paying stamp duty at commercial rates for 8.83 sq.m. as with regard to a neighbouring plot on 30.9.2003 in the case of one Sri Rajeev Kumar Goyal in Case No. 158/03-04, the latter was ordered to pay stamp duty at commercial rate for the front portion of the plot and at residential rates for the rear portion of the plot. He emphasised in the reply that the payment of stamp duty was done by him in this manner simply because of the adjudication in the case of Sri Rajiv Kumar Goel and in fact he ought to have paid stamp duty at the rate which was applicable on land which was sold in residential areas only for the whole plot. Not satisfied by the reply, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Banda found a deficiency of Rs. 83,100/- on 21.1.2004. The appeal as was filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 1.10.2004 by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that stamp duty could not be fixed on the basis of some likely use of the property on a future day. Unless on the date when the instrument was being registered, the Collector (Stamps) on the basis of material available could assess that the property was to be definitely used for commercial purposes he could not apply commercial rates. Learned counsel submitted that it was not permissible for the Collector to launch upon a speculative enquiry about the prospective use which the land might be put to on an uncertain future date.
For coming to a conclusion that the plot would definitely be used for commercial purpose the sale deeds with respect to adjacent plots could be seen. In this regard the petitioner relied upon a Full Bench decision reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 136 ( Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. ) and further relied upon a decision reported in 2009 (106) RD 749 (Prafulla Singh vs. State of U.P. through Chief Controller of Revenue, Allahabad) which had laid down that mere proximity of a certain residential plot to a commercial plot would not mean that the property had to be valued as a commercial property. Upon a conjoint reading of the two decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the essence of the provisions of the Stamp Act was that the property was to be valued on the date when the sale had taken place and that prospective value had not to be ascertained of the property to which it might be used for at an uncertain future date. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner, seeing that a neighbour of his had paid at commercial rate for a part of the property and at residential rate for the rest of it, had also very honestly given out that he would use 8.83 sq.m. for commercial purposes and 55.44 sq.m. for residential purposes and therefore, no action should have been taken against the petitioner. This the learned counsel submits was done by way of abundant caution. In fact on the day when the sale had taken place the rates prevalent in the area were residential as it was a residential colony.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply has submitted that the property in question was situate in an area which was turning into a commercial area and new shops were being opened everyday and therefore, the property should have been valued at commercial rates.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the mere fact that the property was situate in an area which had shops would not mean that the petitioner would definitely use the property for commercial purposes. Under the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, certain guidelines have been provided in Rules 4 and 5. Whenever there is a confusion as to what valuation had to be fixed, the authorities concerned should always rely upon the guidelines given in the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.
In the instant case, the petitioner had very honestly given out that a part of the property would be used for commercial purposes in the future and the rest would be used for residential purposes and had accordingly paid the stamp duty. The petitioner could have very conveniently paid stamp duty as per the prevailing rates but he had, relying upon an order passed by the stamp authorities of a neighbouring plot, paid stamp duty which was fixed for that plot. In this conspectus the reason given out in the impugned orders that the property was situate in a commercial area and should be valued as a commercial plot, in the teeth of the objections which were given by the petitioner that essentially the property was situate in a residential area, cannot be sustained. The orders impugned dated 21.1.2004 and 1.10.2004 therefore, are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Any amount which might have been paid as per the demand which was made by the impugned order may be refunded to the petitioner with simple interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Ashish Pd.