Pankaj Mithal, J.;-

Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been examined.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Bulandshahar and the appellate order thereto dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut in proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. The instrument in question is Instrument No. 4566 of 2009 which is a sale deed dated 20.4.09 in respect of part of land of Gata No.765 situate in Mauja Araniya Bhojpur, Pargana & Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahar. Petitioner on the aforesaid sale deed paid the necessary stamp duty by determining the market value as per the circle rate prescribed for agricultural land.

4. The Sub-registrar Khurja, vide Report dated 20.7.09 recommended for charging stamp duty by valuing the land as residential and in this respect he referred to two earlier sale deeds which were also in connection with the part of the aforesaid plot.

5. The Additional Collector solely on the basis of the report of the Sub-registrar without there being any other evidence determined the market value by applying the minimum circle rate prescribed for residential use of the land.

6. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal on the ground that according to the report of the Sub-registrar in the earlier two sale deeds land of the same plot was sold and it was disclosed to be of residential use, therefore, the land covered by the sale deed in question is also to be treated as residential land.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that sufficient evidence was produced to show that the land is recorded as agricultural land and that there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as Act). In such circumstances, in the absence of any spot inspection to prove the actual use of the land, it was not open for the authorities to have treated the said land to be agricultural land. The reliance placed upon the report of the Sub-registrar is misconceived and it is not an admissible piece of evidence.

8. In the case of Ram Khilawan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (2) AWC 1987 it has been settled by this court that the report of the Sub-registrar which forms the basis for initiation of proceedings under the Act is not relevant and material for determining the market value of the land.

9. In view of above, the reliance placed by the authorities below upon the report of the Sub-registrar in coming to the conclusion that the land in question is of residential use is totally illegal.

10. It has also been held in Ram Khilawan (Supra) that the circle rates prescribed for different categories of land by the Collector under the Act/Rules are only relevant till the stage of registration of the sale deed and they may not act as a proper guideline for determining the market value once the document is registered. After the registration of the sale deed, the proper course for determining the market value is to apply the general principles as are normally applicable for determining the market value for payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

11. It may be a different thing that where exemplars are not available and there is no other evidence also to enable the authorities to determine the market value, the authorities fall back upon the minimum circle rates prescribed by the Collector and in such a situation the circle rates may form the basis of determination of the market value.

12. In such a situation, the primary thing is to determine the precise nature of the land for applying the circle rate.

13. The submission of learned Standing counsel is that the authorities below have placed reliance upon two earlier sale deeds concerning the same plot and therefore, the determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document