2018 Supreme(All) 2152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Dal Jeet Singh & Another - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. 34990 of 2008
Decided On : 16-07-2018

Headnote:

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 33/47-A - Insufficient stamp duty – Petitioners are vendees in sale-deed purchased plots and recorded as agricultural plots in revenue records and stamp duty was paid – Sub-Registrar-I, Jhansi submitted a report stating that the plots were adjacent to road and residential houses were constructed in front of the said plots – Stating that electricity and water supply facilities were available in the area and thus the market value of the property was to be calculated and petitioners were liable to pay stamp duty at rates applicable for residential plots –Commissioner judgment and order under challenged – Held, land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of stamp duty – This is because the nature of the user is relateable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the stamp duty – Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value – At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise –p The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous sale deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration – The Collector, therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser – There is no illegality in orders passed by the Collector, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 3 and passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 2 – Writ petition lacks merit and dismissed. (Para 28 and 29)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners are vendees in the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004. The plots purchased through the aforesaid sale-deed were recorded as agricultural plots in the revenue records and stamp duty was paid on the said sale-deed accordingly. The Sub-Registrar-I, Jhansi submitted a report dated 25.10.2004 stating that the plots were adjacent to road and residential houses were constructed in front of the said plots. It was also stated in the report that electricity and water supply facilities were available in the area and thus the market value of the property was to be calculated and petitioners were liable to pay stamp duty at rates applicable for residential plots and, therefore, sale-deed dated 20.10.2004 was insufficiently stamped. On the aforesaid report of the Sub-Registrar-I, Jhansi, Case No. 7/2004-05 under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1899’) was registered before the Collector, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 3, against the petitioners. The petitioners were issued a show cause notice in the case and in response to the show cause notice, submitted their reply stating that the plots were agricultural in nature and were also being used for the said purpose. It was stated by the petitioners that the plots were recorded as agricultural plots in the relevant revenue records and the market value of the plots and the requisite stamp duty had to be determined accordingly. However, a perusal of the objections filed by the petitioner shows that they had not denied that the plots were adjacent to residential plots. The Collector, Jhansi vide his order dated 17.7.2006, relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar dated 25.10.2004 regarding the location of the plots held that there was a deficiency in payment of stamp duty on the sale-deed dated 20.10.2004. In his order dated 17.7.2006, the Collector held that though the plots were being used for agricultural purpose but because of their location, the market value of the plots was three times the rate fixed for agricultural plots and stamp duty had to be paid accordingly. The aforesaid order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Jhansi was challenged by the petitioner under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899 by filing Stamp Revision No. 21 of 2005-06 before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Commissioner’), which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his judgment and order dated 3.8.2007. The orders dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Collector and 3.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner have been challenged in the present writ petition.

Findings of the case:

land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of stamp duty – This is because the nature of the user is relateable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the stamp duty – Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value – At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise –p The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous sale deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration – The Collector, therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser – There is no illegality in orders passed by the Collector, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 3 and passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, i.e., respondent No. 2.

Result: Writ petition lacks merit and dismissed.