IMPORTANT POINT
The potential use of land at the time of sale is critical in determining stamp duty, and the burden of proof lies with the state to show that the correct duty was not paid.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 3-Collector Stamp/District Magistrate, Shajahanpur in Stamp Case No. 67/24/2009, under Section 47A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act determining the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 14,53,410/- and, imposition of penalty of Rs. 1590/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, and the order dated 25.4.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in Stamp Appeal No. 50/2011-12 affirming the order passed by the respondent No. 3-Collector Stamp.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners through sale-deed No. 8006/2009, dated 13.4.2009, purchased a piece of land measuring area 1.166 hectares i.e. 11,660 sq. meters from plot No. 64 having a total area of 2.485 hectares situated in the village Northern Area of the City outside Chungi near Village Chinnaur for agricultural purpose and paid stamp duty as per the circle rate prevailing in the area applicable for agricultural land i.e. Rs. 9,42,000/- per hectare (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot').

4. According to the petitioners, the distance of the plot purchased by them from the road is about 1 kilometre and the Abadi is also about 1/2 kilometre from the plot. Since the use of the plot on the date of the sale-deed was agricultural, therefore, the petitioners paid the stamp duty of Rs. 77,000/-.

5. It appears that an inspection of the plot was conducted by the Sub Registrar, Sadar, Shahjahanpur on 11.8.2009. He found that Gata No. 64 is situated on the road connecting to brick-klin (Bhatta), and the bricks have been stored on the plot, and plotting activities were also being carried out over the plot. The report of the Sub-Registrar further stated that another sale-deed No. 3613/09 was executed from the same plot. In the sale-deed No. 3613/09, stamp duty was paid as per the circle rate applicable to the residential area. The Assistant Collector (Stamp) registered a case based on the report of the Sub Registrar, under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act as case No. 67/24/2009 and issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to submit an objection about the deficiency in payment of stamp duty.

6. The petitioners submitted an objection contending inter alia that the report of the Sub-Registrar is based upon incorrect facts. It is also stated that the plot is an agricultural plot and is surrounded by agricultural land, therefore, the petitioners have paid the correct stamp duty as per the circle rate applicable to the agricultural land.

7. The Collector (Stamp) rejected the objection of the petitioners by recording a finding that the stamp duty as per residential area was paid in respect to another sale-deed No. 3613/09 purchased from the same plot which establishes that the residential activities are being carried out in the vicinity of the plot, and the petitioners have submitted incorrect map alongwith the sale-deed to pay insufficient stamp duty. Accordingly, he concluded that the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp duty applicable to the residential land. Consequently, he determined the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 14,53,410/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1590/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the deficient stamp duty.

8. The order passed by the Collector Stamp was assailed by the petitioners in statutory appeal being Stamp Appeal No. 50/2011-12. In the memo of appeal, petitioners have specifically stated that the report of the Sub-Registrar was ex-parte and no spot inspection was carried out by the Collector Stamp before determining the stamp duty. It is further stated that the sale-deed No. 3613/09 is not relevant for the determination of the present case.

9. The Respondent No. 2-Chief Controlling