The central legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes should consider the potential use and surrounding area activities at the time of Sale Deed execution.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Heard Sri Shushrut Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 15.06.2016 passed in a Stamp Case instituted by the State-respondents under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Revisional Authority in the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 56 of the Act, rejecting the same.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner bought only 0.081 hectare of land of plot no.313, the total measurement of which, was 0.634 hectare. It was surrounded on three sides of agricultural land and on the fourth side by Chaudharydeeh Tulsipur Road, through a registered Sale Deed from one Vibhutinath alias Nathu Ram. The said Sale Deed was registered as 7346/2014 on 14.11.2014. At the time when the land was purchased, as per Circle Rate for agricultural land fixed @ Rs.20 lacs per hectare, the petitioner paid the consideration of Rs.2,03,000/-, on which, Stamp Duty of Rs.10,150/- was paid along with registration fee of Rs.2030/-.

4. After registration of the Sale Deed, the petitioner, all of a sudden received a show-cause notice in Stamp Case No.128/D 201608100074 instituted under Section 47A(3) of the Stamp Act on 24.02.2016. In the said show-cause notice, a mention was made of an Audit report/objection dated 7.1.2016 by the Audit team sent from the office of the Accountant General. The Audit party had raised an objection that plot no.313 ad-measuring 0.0634 Hectare had earlier been shown as a residential land and some part of the same Gata had been sold by the same vendor Nathu Ram through Sale Deed No.7254 on 12.11.2014 @ 3600 per square meter.

5. The petitioner submitted a reply saying that the land that the petitioner had bought was recorded as agricultural land. It was bought for agricultural purposes only. In the revenue records also, there was no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In the objection, the petitioner also stated that one Lalta Prasad s/o Kanhaiya Lal had sold half of the plot no.313 in favour of Vibhuti Nath and Ram Manohar, sons of Ram Saran, through registered Sale Deed and the land had been recorded in the name of his vendor in Mutation Case No.1424 by the order of Tehsildar, Balrampur on 27.07.2010. Since the land was agricultural in nature and was surrounded also by agricultural land, the petitioner had paid stamp duty on the basis of agricultural rates as mentioned in the Collector's list of Circle Rates.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur, several judgments were also cited by the petitioner to show that only because the potential of the land in question has increased with passage of time, the valuation of the plot could not be said to be automatically increased. The valuation of the plot has to be determined on the date on which the Sale Deed has been executed and registered. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Balrampur, ignored such submissions and passed the order dated 15.06.2016.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Revision No.06/C-20160800896 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. In the said revision also, the petitioner raised the ground that plot of land had not yet been declared for non-agricultural purposes under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It has been recorded in the revenue records as agricultural land and that the petitioner bought only one bigha of land and on the basis of Collector's list of Circle Rates of Rs.20 lacs per hectare for agricultural land, stamp duty and registration fee had been paid. The petitioner had also relied upon judgments with regard to his contention that valuation of the land cannot be determined on the basis of its potential to be used for