Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1817
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Smt. Manju Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly and Another - Respondents
Writ C. No. 51725 Of 2010
Decided On : 07-04-2022
For the Petitioner: Tarun Agrawal.
The burden of proof lies on revenue authorities to establish the nature and use of the property for stamp duty valuation, and conclusions based on presumptions and conjectures are not enforceable.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Property Valuation - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A, Rule 38(2), Section 33, Section 40(1)(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the valuation of property for stamp duty purposes under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, along with Rule 38(2), Section 33, and Section 40(1)(b). The court highlighted the burden of proof on revenue authorities to establish the nature and use of the property as commercial, and emphasized the need for material and evidence to support such determinations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order confirming stamp duty deficiency on a property purchased, claiming it to be residential while revenue authorities proposed it to be commercial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue authorities did not discharge the essential burden to establish the nature and use of the property as commercial, and their conclusions were based on presumptions and conjectures, leading to the orders being set aside and the writ petition being allowed.
Issues: Valuation of property for stamp duty, burden of proof on revenue authorities, nature and use of property as residential or commercial.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden to establish the nature and use of the property as commercial was on the revenue authorities, and their conclusions based on presumptions and conjectures were found to be perverse.
Final Decision: The orders passed by the original authority and the appeal authority were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs. Any deposited amount was to be refunded to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Iman Syed, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 22.05.2010 in Stamp Appeal No. 173/66/2009-10 (Smt. Manju Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.). By that order, the appeal authority has confirmed the order dated 15.11.2007 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') determining the stamp deficiency on a property measuring 66.46 square metre purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 30.09.2006 for sale consideration for Rs. 3,10,000/-.
3. In short, the petitioner claimed to have purchased a residential property in the locality Zulfiqarganj, Bareilly. She paid stamp duty thereon @ 8% Rs. 24,800/-.
4. On 18.01.2007, a notice was issued under Section 47A of the Act referring to Rule 38(2) of the Rules framed under the Act and Section 33 read with Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Also, a report of the Tehsildar was submitted on 07.02.2007 disclosing that the aforesaid property was at a distance of more than 30 metres from the main road. It comprised of one room, one hall together with a latrine and bathroom by way of construction existing thereon. The construction was estimated to be about 45 years old.
5. At that stage, the petitioner appears to have filed objections dated 12.07.2007 wherein it clearly claimed the property to be residential in nature. The circle rate for such property was disclosed at Rs. 3500 per square metre. According to the petitioner, the sale deed had been correctly valued for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.
6. Second and third reports are also stated to have been submitted in such proceedings being dated 19.07.2007 and 18.08.2007, proposing to value the property in question as commercial.
7. On its part, the petitioner further relied on the stamp duty assessment of an adjacent property of Smt. Urmila Devi. Referring to that order, it has been submitted that that property was accepted to be a residential property. While mentioning its boundaries, there is clear mention of the property of the present petitioner giving rise to the present proceedings.
8. Thus, it has been submitted, the property in question was also a residential property. There is no material to doubt the same. In any case, the revenue authorities did not lead any evidence to establish that the disputed property was commercial in nature. That burden not discharged, the finding recorded by the original authority and the appeal authority are stated to be perverse or based on presumptions and conjectures. Merely because the property may have been put to use different for which it had been earmarked may not be enough to subject the conveyance with respect to such a property at a different or a higher rate. Reliance has been placed on two earlier decisions of this Court in Vijay Kumar & Anr. Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & Anr., 2008 (7) ADJ 293 and Anshu Chhabara Vs. Collector, Jhansi & Anr., 2008 (9) ADJ 736.
9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit, once it was found that the property was being used to carry out trade in foodgrains, no error exists in subjecting the conveyance to stamp duty by valuing such document @ rate equivalent for commercial property.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in Vijay Kumar (supra), it has been observed as under:
"19. In the case of Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Board of revenue, Allahabad, 1996 (87) R.D. 419. ''Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that situation of a property in an area close to a decent colony not by itself would make it part thereof and should not be a factor for approach of the authority in determining the market value. According to said decision, valuation has to be determined on co
