Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56150 of 2009 Petitioner :- Veena Agrawal Respondent :- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.N. Shrama,H.N. Singh,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri H.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 25.9.2008, 3.8.2009 and 28.9.2009 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that she purchased the property in dispute Khasra no.1099 area 0.253 hectare situate in Village Arthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad through a sale deed dated 29.8.2007 on a sale consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid. When the document was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar raised an objection that there was deficiency of stamp duty as the area in question was commercial area and that there was no residential area anywhere near about. On this report of the Sub Registrar dated 29.8.2007 proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the Collector Stamps. The petitioner filed her objections. The Collector, however by his order dated 25.9.2008 relying upon the report of the Sub Registrar as well as the report of the Tehsildar had determined the market value of the property at commercial rates at Rs. 5,06,00,000/- and stamp duty payable thereon was computed at Rs. 50,60,000/- and after deducting Rs. 3,75,000/- already paid by the petitioner, the deficiency of stamp duty was calculated at Rs. 46,85,000/- plus penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/-; total Rs. 66,85,000/- with interest @ 1.5 % per month. Aggrieved the petitioner filed stamp appeal which was dismissed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by its order dated 3.8.2009. The petitioner contended that it was an ex parte order and therefore, filed a recall application which was also rejected by order dated 29.9.2009. Hence, the present writ petition.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that in the report of the Sub Registrar, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition it has been mentioned that the property in dispute is situated in Village Arthala near abadi (residential area) near the triangular crossing of Meerut Road and Mohan Nagar crossing and because in this area there is no circle rate provided for residential area, therefore, the property must necessarily be computed for determining market value at commercial rates. Therefore, it was held by him that the rate in the area being Rs. 20,000/- per square meters, the valuation of the property was computed at Rs. 5,06,00,000/- and stamp duty at Rs. 50,60,000/- and penalty at Rs. 46,85,000/-. The Collector, Stamp, thereafter called for a report from the Tehsildar who submitted a spot inspection report dated 18.6.2008 in which he has mentioned that the land in question being Khasra no. 1099 area 0.253 hectares is situated on the G.T. Road and in between the plot in dispute and the G.T. Road, there is another plot no. 1098 area 0.063 hectares and over an area of 0.0117 hectares, there is a naala (drain) and over a part of the area of 0.0183 on the G.T. Road as well as area 0.0100 hectares, there is a naala. He has further mentioned in his report that in the east west and to the south of the property in dispute, there is total abadi and to the north is the naala and thereafter, the G.T. Road. Along with the report, a map was also attached. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the land in dispute was never situated on the main G.T. Road itself and between the plot in dispute and the G.T. Road there was not only the plot no. 1098 area 0.063 hectares but there was also a naala thereafter and then the G.T. Road. He further submits that the Tehsildar in his report has clearly stated that on three sides, namely, on the East, West and South there is abadi and on the North there is the naala and thereafter, the G.T. Road.
The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Annexure-11 filed along with the affidavit in support of the amendment application which is the circle rate determined by the District Magistrate and applicable w.e.f. 16.7.2007 which clearly shows the circle rate for residential land in Village Arthala at Rs. 4,000/- per square meters. He also submits that there is separate circle rate for residential colonies situated in Arthala known as Anand Industrial Estate, Om Nagar, J.P Enclave and Sanjay Colony. Reference has also been made to page 30 of the amendment application where the commercial rate as applicable in village Arthala has been prescribed at Rs. 25,000/- per square meters. From this circle rate dated 16.6.2007, the learned counsel has tried to show that the finding of the Sub Registrar was erroneous that there was no rate prescribed for abadi land in Village Arthala and that there was only circle rate for commercial property and therefore, the market value of the property in dispute was determined at commercial rates.
From a perusal of the impugned order of the Collector, it is noticed that he has placed reliance on these two reports of the Tehsildar and the report of the Sub Registrar but he has completely ignored the finding recorded by the Tehsildar that to the East, West and South there was abadi and in the North there was plot no. 1098 and thereafter, a naala and thereafter, the G.T. Road.
The Collector, Stamp has without any foundation accepted the report of the Sub Registrar that because there was no circle rate for residential land in the area and whatever circle rate was prescribed was for commercial rates, therefore, the property in dispute could have been computed for determining market value at commercial rates. The sale deed is dated 29.8.2007 which shows that the circle rate applicable w.e.f. 16.7.2007 would be clearly applicable to the property in dispute also and since a clear finding has been recorded by the Tehsildar that in the area there was abadi in the East, West and South and that in the North there was a vacant land Khasra no. 1098 and thereafter, a naala and thereafter, the G.T. Road and the circle rate for residential area is also prescribed in the notification of the District Magistrate as Rs. 4,000/- per square meters, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no circle rate applicable to the residential area in Village Arthala. The Sub Registrar in his report has nowhere mentioned that the property in dispute is situated in a commercial area. His report dated 29.8.2007, filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit nowhere mentions that there is any commercial activity going on over the said property. The only reason for applying commercial rates is that there was no rate prescribed for agricultural or residential area and therefore, he has applied the circle rate of Rs. 20,000/- per square meters as applicable to commercial area. The report of the Sub Registrar, however, stands falsified in view of the commercial rates prescribed by the District Magistrate as applicable w.e.f. 16.7.2007 which also mentions the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per square meters for commercial area but it also prescribes the rate as applicable to the residential area in Village Arthala. Thus, the report of the Sub-registrar contains absolutely no material on which the Collector, Stamp could have relied to come to the conclusion that the property in dispute was situated in a commercial area. In fact the finding of the Tehsildar negates any such presumption. Since he in his report dated 18.6.2008 has clearly noted that on three sides, namely, East, West and South, there was abadi and in the North there was plot no. 1098 and thereafter, a naala (Drain)and thereafter, the G.T. Road. None of these facts have been considered by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in his two orders dated 3.8.2009 or 29.9.2009.
For reasons aforesaid, the order dated 25.9.2008, 3.8.2009 and 28.9.2009 are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and are, therefore, set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3-Additional Collector (F&R), Ghaziabad to re-determine the market value of the property in question, in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made herein above and pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.
Any amount which may have been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty shall be subject to any final order which may be passed by the Collector.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Kirti