Back
2011 Supreme(All) 1467
[2011(7) ADJ 167]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.U. KHAN, J.
M/s. ESCOTEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11688 of 2002, decided on 18th May, 2011)
Headnote:(Indian) Stamp Act, 1899—Section 47-A—Stamp duty—Deficiency—Determination of—Deficiency of Rs. 28,29,200 in stamp duty was determined—But evidence may be sale-deed of nearest property executed immediately prior to date on which sale-deed in question was executed—Court below have done a wonderful thing by accepting the circle rate of D.M. for determining market value of land but have outrightly discarded the same in respect of reduction in market value for higher floors—Impugned orders set aside to the extent of 50%—And held that deficiency is only to the extent of only 50% deficiency as determined by impugned orders. [Paras 5 to 11]
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 47-A Stamp Act for determining deficiency in stamp duty, if any, payable on the sale-deed dated 21.5.1996. The first order was passed by A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) Meerut on 14.7.1998 in case No. 277 of 1997-98, State v. M/s Escotel Mobile Communication Ltd. Proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the headmaster of some Primary School Fatehpur.
3. The authorities must be extra careful before initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act on the complaints of unconcerned persons. More often then not due to some grudge either not connected with or not fully concerned with the transaction in question such complaints are filed.
4. Property in dispute was purchased for Rs. 1,46,50,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 18,31,250/- was paid. Through the sale-deed some floors of a commercial complex situate at Abu Lane Meerut were sold and purchased.
5. The case of the petitioner was that it got the property valued by Sri Anil Sabrawal, the valuer who assessed the market value to be Rs. 1.2 crore, however, stamp was paid on Rs. 1.465 crore valuation. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that in respect of adjoining property a decision had been taken in case No. 136/B of 1985 of 1996-97, State v. Ameer Khan on 10.3.1997 holding the valuation to be Rs. 13000/- per sq. meter.
6. According to the circle rates of 1994 different floors were to be valued in different manner, value of first floor to be 60% of ground floor and of basement and other floors to be 50% of ground floor.
7. Petitioner had purchased through the impounded sale-deed dated 21.5.1996 basement of 2000 sq. feet, (186 sq. meter) second floor 6140 sq. feet (570 sq. meter), third floor 6140 sq. fee (570 sq.meter) Terrace 5300 sq. feet (492 sq. Meter) total 19580 sq. feet (1819 sq. meter) in a marketing complex bearing No. 182. Abu Lane, Meerut, Basement, second floor, third floor and terrace were valued at Rs. 8050 per sq. meter i.e. 50% of Rs. 16100 per sq. meter which was market value fixed for the ground floor in the circle rates of 1994. In the impugned order flat rate of Rs. 18400/- per sq. meter for land and Rs. 2500/- per sq. meter for constructions was applied. In the impugned order it is mentioned that construction material was quite excellent hence every floor must be valued at the same rate. This finding is not acceptable. Valuation decreases floor wise not on the basis of material used in construction but independently of that. In the impugned order it is also mentioned that District Magistrate had passed an order on 8.2.1996 to the effect that circle rates fixed by him for 1994 should be given 15 % increase for the sale-deeds to be excluded in future. In the impugned order it was held that in this manner 15% of Rs. 16,000/- comes to Rs. 18400 and multiplying that by 1819 (total purchased area in sq. meter) the figure which comes is Rs. 3,34,79,600/-. Thereafter, cost of construction was held to be 38,14,000/-. In this manner total valuation of the purchased property was determined to be Rs. 3,72,83,600/-. This break up formula is not to be applied in every case vide State of Kerala v. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201. Ultimately, deficiency of Rs. 28,29,200/- in stamp duty was determined. Against the order passed by the A.D.M. stamp revision 286 of 1998-99 was filed which was dismissed by C.C.R.A./Board of Revenue, Allahabad on 6.2.2002, hence this writ petition.
8. In my opinion a fantastic figure has been arrived at by the A.D.M. by applying unacceptable formula. I have held in Ram Khelawan v. State of U.P., 2005 R.D. (98) page 511 that market value in stamp matters at the final stage is to be determined on the same basis on which it is determined in land acqui
