The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of stamp duty valuation based on the market value of the property on the date of the instrument and the potential use of the land at the time of execution of the instrument.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Commissioner Moradabad Division dated 16.08.2013 passed in Appeal No.35/2012-13 (Baba Associates Vs State) filed under Section-56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By that order, the appellate authority has confirmed the deficiency of stamp Rs.1,19,800/-, and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the petitioner, vide order dated 18.10.2012 passed in Stamp Case No.309 of 2012-13 under Section 47A of the Act.

3. It transpires, the petitioner executed the subject sale deed dated 12.04.2012 whereby he disclosed purchase 0.506 hectare of agricultural land in Gata No.247, Village-Alipura, Tehsil-Nazibabad, District-Bijnor. Earlier, the petitioner had purchased certain other portions of that land (in the same Gata), vide the earlier sale deeds dated 17.08.2011 and 27.12.2011. Copies of those deeds have been appended to the rejoinder affidavit. That is the admitted case of the petitioner. In any case, the penalty imposed is wholly unfounded and excessive.

4. After execution of the subject sale deed, the petitioner applied for declaration under Section-143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reforms Act') to declare non agricultural, the land purchased by him vide subject sale deed. Soon thereafter, on 11.06.2012, the ADM conducted a spot inspection of the land in question and submitted his report calling upon the stamp collector to make a reference re under valuation of the subject deed. Also admittedly, on 26.06.2012, the land in question was declared 'abadi'. On 06.07.2012, permission was granted to the petitioner to develop a residential colony.

5. In that background on 24.07.2012, a notice was issued under Section 33/47A to the petitioner, proposing to value the subject deed at Rs.80,96,000/-against disclosed valuation Rs.56,93,000/-. Accordingly against disclosed stamp duty payment Rs.2,85,000/-, deficient stamp duty Rs.1,19,800/-was proposed to be assessed.

6. In the proceedings, the revenue authorities relied on the report of the ADM with respect to spot inspection dated 11.06.2012 wherein it was found construction activities were being carried out over the land in question. Further, it has noted in the order of the appellate authority, plotting work was also being carried out.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in the spot inspection report, it was found, the land was lying vacant and the plotting work that had been referred to was on the land earlier purchased by the petitioner i.e. in the year 2011 (referred to above by way of averments of the rejoinder affidavit). Further reference has been made to the 'Khatauni' to submit that Gata No.247 is a very large plot. On a small portion thereof abadi existed. On the remaining plot, agricultural activities was being carried out. Strong emphasis has been laid to the ground of appeal wherein the report submitted by the ADM was doubted. Thus, it has also been submitted, a fresh inspection ought to have been conducted during the appeal proceedings. Last, it has been suggested, even today no residential colony has come up.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits, the 'abadi' was on the larger portion of the same Gata/plot. In any case, in face of admission made by the petitioner that it was plotting the land earlier purchased and the present subject deed being with respect to the same plot of land coupled with the declaration sought under Section 143 of the Reforms Act, immediately upon purchase of the land, there is no error in the order determining stamp deficiency and penalty.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as, it is not disputed that the petitioner had made purchase of a portion of the s