The main legal point established is that the valuation of agricultural land for stamp duty purposes should be based on its utility at the time of transfer, considering factors such as the character of the land, its usage, and the amenities available in the area.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had purchased 500 square meters of land out of plot No. 412/0/15-0 situated in phulpur town area, Allahabad under registered sale deed on 1st May. 1992, setting forth Rs. 50. 000 as market value of the property. Proceeding was initiated by the Collector for determining the market value of the property under Section 47a, read with Section 33 of the stamp Act. By an order dated 8th February. 1993. the Collector had held that the market value was Rs. 1,79. 970 and, therefore, the stamp duty payable was Rs. 16. 240 and directed the payment of the difference by the petitioner. A revision being Stamp Revision No. 111 of 1993-94 was preferred by the petitioner. By an order dated 17th January, 1996. the revision was dismissed. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

( 2 ) POINTING out from the impugned orders, Mr. N. D. Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the revenue records, the land was recorded as agricultural land with bhumadhari interest. He also points out that the boundary of the land shows that the land surrounding the disputed plot are agricultural lands. Unless there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. according to him. the character of the said land cannot be treated to be residential (abadi) even for the purpose of determining the market value of the land for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Therefore, according to him, the valuation of the land on the ground that the land is situated within town area and that it is in close proximity of residential area the land is to be treated with the potential of the residential plot, is wholly erroneous, misconceived and, therefore, cannot be sustained. According to him. it is the value as on the date of transfer that has to be calculated and not the future potential of the land that can be taken into account. He next contends that the land being agricultural land, the valuation is to be determined according to Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules and not otherwise. Since the valuation set forth is more than the value that could be determined under Rule 341, there was no authority or jurisdiction on the Collector or any other authority under Section 47a, read with Section 33 of the Stamp Act to make a reference. Therefore, according to him, the proceeding is wholly without Jurisdiction and void. According to him, it is only when the market value is less than the minimum value as provided in Rule 341, only then a reference could be made either under section 33 or under Section 47a and not otherwise and as such, the reference is bad and, therefore, on such a reference the Collector could not have assumed Jurisdiction. He then contends that even then while calculating the market value, the Collector did not take into account any materials for the purpose of determination thereof. It is only on a presumption that the land is a residential plot and that the land in the area are to be determined on the circle rate, which is Rs. 300. per square metre. Therefore, this is perverse and not based on any material. According to him. in view of Rule 349, read with Section 47a of the Stamp Act. the market value could have been determined on various factors. But here, no such factor having been taken into consideration, the valuation is based on no material. He further contends this as an alternative submission and not his primary submission. He next contends that the Collector had not taken into account the materials placed on record, particularly the affidavit and the revenue records produced by him. He contends that the revlsional authority has also not gone into all these questions and had cursorily affirmed the order of the learned Collector. Therefore, the same suffers from same perversity as that of the order of the Collector. Therefore, the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside.

( 3 ) MR. Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel