IMPORTANT POINT
The classification of property for stamp duty purposes must be based on factual inspections rather than initial declarations in sale deeds, especially when rectifications have been made.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated June 8, 2021 passed by Deputy Commissioner Stamps, Kanpur Region, Kanpur/the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order dated December 4, 2020 passed by Collector Stamps, Etawah/the respondent No.3

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the present case is delineated below:

(a) The case pertains to payment of deficient stamp duty while registering a sale-deed bearing Document No.2266 of 2017, dated April 7, 2017, whereby the petitioner had purchased Plot No.388, area 162.63 square meters in Mohalla Manikpur Vishu, Etawah at the rate of Rs.18000/- per square meter and paid stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,100 at a rate of 7 percent.

(b) On February 22, 2018, a report was submitted by the office of the Accountant General, Lucknow to the respondent No.3 that there is deficiency in the stamp duty on the aforesaid sale-deed. Subsequently, a case was registered against the petitioner by issuing notice to him.

(c) On August 5, 2019, the petitioner submitted his objection with a prayer that in order to ascertain the correct fact as to whether the plot in question is commercial or non-commercial, the competent authority is required to get the spot inspected.

(d) The respondent No.3 directed the Deputy Registrar, Etawah/the respondent No.4 to make a spot inspection of the land in question. The respondent No.4 made the spot inspection on January 6, 2019 and submitted his report on January 7, 2019.

(e) On December 4, 2020, the respondent No.3 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,03,190/- along with a penalty of Rs.1,000/-, totaling Rs. 6,04,190/-, with respect to the sale deed bearing Document No.2266/2017. He also directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 1.50 percent per month on the deficit stamp duty from the date of execution of the instrument i.e. April 7, 2017 till the date of deposit of the stamp duty.

(f) Against the order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 before the respondent No.2 who, vide order dated June 8, 2021, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated December 4, 2020 passed by the respondent No.3.

(g) It is to be noted that the petitioner made an application before the Competent Authority for rectification of the sale deed indicating the nature of the land to be agricultural. Such application was allowed on March 8, 2021.

(h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated December 4, 2020 and June 8, 2021 passed by the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition before this Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

3. Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions in the matter:

i. Initially there was an error in the sale deed in question as in the sale deed the land was described as commercial instead of non- agricultural. This mistake was subsequently rectified and the word ‘commercial’ was substituted by the word ‘non-agricultural’. The rectification was duly approved by the registration authority and the stamp duty was paid accordingly.

ii. The authorities below have passed the impugned orders in violation of established legal procedures. This includes non consideration of important evidence such as the spot inspection report submitted by the respondent No. 4 which should have been given due weightage in the decision making process.

iii. The impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal since they are based on non-existing grounds. This is evident from the fact that the land in question was determined to be agricultural in nature, not commercial, as per the spot inspection report.

iv. The petitioner corrected the mistake in the sale-deed promptly upon discovering it. The correction deed clearly states that the land is non- agricultural