The valuation of property for stamp duty purposes should be in accordance with the statutory provisions, and the admissibility of evidence should be determined based on legal principles.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Commissioner Stamp dated 20.07.2011, imposing deficiency of stamp duty and penalty etc. on sale deed dated 28.06.2010 of the petitioners and Commissioner dated 26.07.2012, dismissing, appeal of the petitioners, against aforesaid order.

3. The petitioners purchased plot 1904 (area 1.0530 hectare) (out of its total area 1.0910 hectare) and 1/4th share in plot 1907 (area 0.3670 hectare) (out of total area 1.1450 hectare) situated in village Semar Patta, pargana Dalmau, district Raibareli, from its owner Deshraj through registered sale deed dated 28.06.2010. In the sale deed, it has been mentioned that both the plots were contiguous and boundary of the land sold was mentioned. According to the provisions of Section 27 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule-6 of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), plot numbers, area, land revenue, nature of land and the fact that in the transferred land three mango trees and three mahua trees and one submersible pump were situated, were mentioned, which valuation have been separately disclosed. Valuation of the land was assessed at the rate of Circle Rate fixed by the Collector, for the locality for the land in the vicinity of 100 meters from abadi and on roadside. Agreed sale consideration was disclosed to Rs. 10,00,000/- but valuation of Rs. 23,98,000/-was determined for payment of stamp duty, calculated at the rate prescribed in Circle Rate for agricultural land situated on roadside within 100 meters of the abadi land and stamp duty was paid accordingly.

4. When the deed was presented for registration, Sub-Registrar was not satisfied with the market value. He allegedly conducted an inquiry and submitted his report, stating therein that in an area of 255.76 sq. meter of plot 1907, there was a tin shed construction for poultry farm and in a part of plot 1904, house of the transferor was existing. Market value of the land and construction of poultry farm was Rs. 11,31,738/-. Total valuation of the land at the rate of abadi land was Rs. 20,61,000/- Total market value was assessed to Rs. 2,18,48,738 and deficiency of stamp was assesses as Rs. 9,72,550/- On this report, Assistant Commissioner Stamp initiated proceedings (registered as Case No. 166 of 2010-11) under Section 47-A (3) of the Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioners.

5. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notice and stated that property in the sale deed was vacant agricultural land only. House and tin shed constructions of poultry farm were not included in it as is clear from the area as well as boundaries of the transferred land as mentioned in the sale deed. Ex-parte report of Sub-Registrar was not admissible in evidence. Market value of the transferred land was correctly mentioned in the sale deed. Assistant Commissioner Stamp, by order dated 20.07.2011 held that a part of the transferred land was being used as abadi as such transferred land was required to be valued at the rate of abadi land. Area of transferred land was found as 11450 sq. meter and its valuation was determined at the rate of 1800/- per sq. meter. On the basis of the report, he assessed market value of the transferred land as Rs. 2,06,10,000/- and together with the valuation of trees and submersible pump was assessed as Rs. 2,18,49,000/- and imposed stamp duty of Rs. 9,25,550/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was imposed upon deficient stamp. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 259 of 2011-2012) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of Commissioner, dated 27.06.2012. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

6. The petitioners denied regarding tin shed construction for poultry farm in a part of plot 1904, be