ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A.P. Sahi, J.
Mukesh (minor), Mahajan under the guardianship of Rukmani Devi
Versus
Chief Revenue Controlling Authority/Board of Revenue, Additional Collector
Civil Misc.Writ Petition 39705 of 1996
Decided On : 24 March 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 39705 Of 1996
Stamp Duty - Valuation of Property - Indian Stamp Act - Section 47-A/33
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the authorities regarding the deficiency in payment of stamp duty for a purchased plot. The authorities relied on future potential value of the land and proximity to the road to assess the stamp duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that assessing the stamp duty based on future potential value of the land was erroneous and not in line with the Indian Stamp Act. The court also rejected the approach of the authorities based on the proximity of the land to the road.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the stamp duty assessment based on future potential value and proximity to the road, and the petitioner's objection to the exemplar used by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that stamp duty should be based on the actual market value of the property at the time of execution, and not on future potential value. The court also emphasized the importance of assessing stamp duty at the time of document execution and not based on future potential use of the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the authorities.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition questions the legality of the orders dated 30. 12. 1995 and 11. 9. 1996 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Maharajganj and Chief Revenue controlling Authority/board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad, respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby reference under section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act has been answered against the petitioner and the petitioner has been called upon to make good the deficiency reported in the payment of the stamp duty.
( 2 ) I have heard Sri J. P, Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the records, as also the submission advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.
( 3 ) THE dispute relates to plot No. 443 M area 0. 18 acres of Village Dinguri, Post Office Kamasin khurd Via Campiarganj, district Maharajganj, which was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 12. 6. 1994 and the amount of consideration is Rs. 16,200/ -. It appears that since the valuation shown in the instrument was less than the circle rate the Sub Registrar reported the reference before the respondent No. 2 indicating certain deficiency in payment of stamp duty the respondent No. 2 proceeded with the matter and finally passed an order dated 30. 12. 1995, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 4 ) THE order passed by the respondent No. 2 indicates that reliance has been placed on an exemplar in respect of a sale deed executed by one Sri Ram Lai in respect of an adjacent plot No. 445, area 2 decimals at the rate of Rs. 55/- per square feet. The respondent No. 2 has further indicated that even though the land has been reported to be an agricultural land and is being utilized as such with a tube well and one room constructed thereon, yet since the land is near to the human habitation and is approximately one hundred meters from the main P. W. D. road, therefore, the instrument was under valued and the respondent No. 2 has proceeded to record a deficiency as indicated in the order dated 30. 12. 1995
( 5 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order moved a Stamp Revision No. 25 of 1996-97 under section 56 of the Stamp Act before the respondent No. 1. The ground of revision has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The revisional authority found that the petitioner did not file any objection to the contents of the reference and that the rate of Rs. 9000/- per acre as suggested in the report of the Tahsildar dated 25. 1. 1995 has no basis. The revisional authority further upheld the order of the respondent No. 2 and has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 150 paragraph 8 to hold that the land has potentialities of urban use and hence the order of the Additional Collector, cannot be faulted with.
( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, 1 proceed to deal with the principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the authorities have committed error by proceeding to assess the value of the instrument on the basis of future potentialities of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the finding recorded by the revisional authority by placing reliance in the case of Administrator General of West bengal (supra) is erroneous inasmuch as the said decision related to the assessment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act where the criteria is different. To the aforesaid extent the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted inasmuch as the principle of assessing the future potential value of a property for the purpose of levying stamp duty cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of calculating the stamp duty under the indian Stamp Act. The reliance placed by the revisional authority on the aforesaid decision, therefore, was totally misplaced. This aspect of the m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.